TSE is right to highlight Thatchers greatest achievement, the Single Market and Single European Act.
She did get some things right.
And the link between the SM and the loss of 20% of our industrial base in a few years is not obvious to you? We went into the SM with an overpriced sterling, mainly thanks to peak oil output but augmented by the tight monetary policy which made Sterling attractive. The result was the annihilation of an uncompetitive industrial base which had been starved of investment by higher interest rates and was left with no protection whatsoever.
Like most of Thatcher's policies it was very good for the City of London which was highly competitive and proceeded to take a very large chunk of the financial services market for the whole of the EU but there was a price to pay and it was terrible.
Britain's mass manufacturing industry was surely in a downwards trend from long before the SM? Industrial policy decisions made in the sixties and seventies, if not before, along with changing technologies?
The SM may not have helped, but the trend was already well set in.
Inept management + over-powerful union barons, both exhibiting a total refusal to adapt = inevitable decline.
The British motorcycle industry is a classic example.
Indeed. Thatcher smashed the power of Trade Unions but did nothing about the inept and incompetent management. It was only with the implant of the Toyota plants in 1992 that we saw it did not have to be this way and even then we were incredibly slow to learn the lessons.
Toyota came to some extent because of the single market.
I agree. So did Nissan. But it did not offset the indigenous industrial losses by much.
Employment in manufacturing fell by half from 1979 -1997, but output was up 15% over that period. Overall, manufacturing output peaked in 2000 and 2018.
Yet none of Thatcher, May and Truss lost a General Election - they were all sacked by their own party and especially by the Parliamentary Party which I suspect was overwhelmingly male.
If Theresa May didn't lose an election, nor did Ted Heath or Gordon Brown.
How did Theresa May lose? She was still PM in 2017.
TMay didn't lose an election, but she came damn close against Jeremy Fu**ing Corbyn. Liz Truss didn't lose an election, but her Premiership was a total catastrophe by virtually every other metric.
I'm not one to stick up for the Labour Party, but this only matters if Labour has ever had a leadership election where a woman was the best candidate but was voted down because of her gender.
Anything else is just meaningless tokenism.
The real story today is how this country has trashed Margaret's golden economic legacy in 35 years of lazy centrist quasi-socialism. And then is somehow surprised when it ends up with despairing politics and no growth.
Many of our current problems are the result of the uncritical perpetuation of a number of Thatcher's policy mistakes.
The impoverishment of the regions was a direct result of Mrs T's policies.
All policies have side-effects, many of which are not known at the time. Mrs T's policies were themselves reactions to problems and effects thrown up by policies and decisions her predecessors had made.
If Thatcher's policies had side-effects that still cause problems, the blame goes as much to her successors who did little, or nothing, to address those side-effects, either by fettling or getting rid of the policies. She resigned 35 years ago.
They also had direct negative effects which were pointed out at the time.
As with, for example, government confiscation of the right to buy proceeds, and the negatives of having privately owned monopoly utilities like the water companies - which were loudly protested for the same reasons they are judged today.
I don't absolve her successors from blame, far from it. But my criticism was directed at those who label her legacy "golden". It really was not.
Yes: but not doing the policies might also have had negative consequences, as was pointed out at the time. Continuing on as we had been in the 80s was not really a good option. And that's what Labour under Foot was offering.
I wouldn't say Thatcher's legacy was 'golden'; it was mixed. But IMO many of the changes she made were sadly necessary.
Failure to anticipate, perceive, care about, or do anything to mitigate the adverse consequences of her major changes, is the major black mark in her report.
As someone who was in the north for a chunk of this period, it was particularly the not caring about the consequences that upset a lot of people. Others in the government (notably Heseltine) could see the impact and did care, but had to fight hard to get support/agreement from Thatcher to do anything about it.
The contrast between the North East and London in say 1986 was very stark.
It was, cf. Our Friends in the North. Although London was surprisingly seedy back then, too - when I see old film or video, the old footage reminds me of how it was, but when I think back myself it is hard to unsee all the changes that have happened since.
Observations from Berlin, at least from a business perspective. I'm consulting with a reasonable sized scale-up for moving some of their AI functions to London due to hostile regulations in Germany over customer data use and given that 80% of their customers sit outside of the EU it makes sense for them to process the data outside of the EU. What surprised me most was being in that office for a few days and seeing how few Germans were in that company. Far, far fewer than you'd expect and I'd say well under half, maybe 3 in 10. The whole data infrastructure team was not from Germany, most of the Data Science team was not from Germany, not a single analyst was from Germany etc... In fact the people who were from Germany that I spoke to were definitely in the admin side of the company in HR and office functions or the opposite at C-Level.
I don't pass any judgement as to whether this is good or bad, just an observation and I'm told that this is fairly common across the Berlin tech sector too, usually Germans only make up around 20-30% of tech roles the rest of the people are on work visas from somewhere else in the world. Compare that to the UK where I'd say in a standard London start up UK workers will make up 60-70% of total tech roles from my experience.
Yet none of Thatcher, May and Truss lost a General Election - they were all sacked by their own party and especially by the Parliamentary Party which I suspect was overwhelmingly male.
If Theresa May didn't lose an election, nor did Ted Heath or Gordon Brown.
How did Theresa May lose? She was still PM in 2017.
She won, but did far worse than expectations.
Heath and Brown plainly lost.
Heath's February 1974 slogan, on posters all over the place was "Who governs Britain?"
And the public said "we're not too sure, but it's not you!"
Good morning (although it's grey and drizzly here) one and all!
Observations from Berlin, at least from a business perspective. I'm consulting with a reasonable sized scale-up for moving some of their AI functions to London due to hostile regulations in Germany over customer data use and given that 80% of their customers sit outside of the EU it makes sense for them to process the data outside of the EU. What surprised me most was being in that office for a few days and seeing how few Germans were in that company. Far, far fewer than you'd expect and I'd say well under half, maybe 3 in 10. The whole data infrastructure team was not from Germany, most of the Data Science team was not from Germany, not a single analyst was from Germany etc... In fact the people who were from Germany that I spoke to were definitely in the admin side of the company in HR and office functions or the opposite at C-Level.
I don't pass any judgement as to whether this is good or bad, just an observation and I'm told that this is fairly common across the Berlin tech sector too, usually Germans only make up around 20-30% of tech roles the rest of the people are on work visas from somewhere else in the world. Compare that to the UK where I'd say in a standard London start up UK workers will make up 60-70% of total tech roles from my experience.
Got to say that doesn’t surprise me at all - Germany is really strange when it comes to IT there are remarkably few Germans in it
Also German privacy laws are a big reason to not do anything with personal data in Germany unless you really need to. It’s why Azure Germany isn’t 100% Microsoft
TSE is right to highlight Thatchers greatest achievement, the Single Market and Single European Act.
She did get some things right.
And the link between the SM and the loss of 20% of our industrial base in a few years is not obvious to you? We went into the SM with an overpriced sterling, mainly thanks to peak oil output but augmented by the tight monetary policy which made Sterling attractive. The result was the annihilation of an uncompetitive industrial base which had been starved of investment by higher interest rates and was left with no protection whatsoever.
Like most of Thatcher's policies it was very good for the City of London which was highly competitive and proceeded to take a very large chunk of the financial services market for the whole of the EU but there was a price to pay and it was terrible.
So clearly, from your own comments, it was not our entry to the SM that caused 'the loss of 20% of our industrial base' but the wider mismanagement of the economy that surrounded it.
The SM didn't trash the industrial base of Germany, France, Italy,...
It definitely did for France and Italy.
I believe that manufacturing output as a share of GDP since the SM has fallen by similar amounts in Italy and Germany. Not sure about France.
This morning I'm quite enjoying the name of a Bluesky acquaintance who does not like Nonny Nonny Nigel, and uses Eulalia as their account name.
Very Woosteresque.
Almost far enough back in the past the reach the time when a lot of British Popular Newspapers and Highbrow Magazines were still dribbling all over Mussolini.
But not quite Woosteresque - which was Eulalie with an e. Probably just as well else one might be looking for a coded meaning!
That sounds suitably coded with a one letter substitution !
TBF Eulalia was the original Roman spelling - it's a saint's name. Several possible allusions there. Though I assume not the polychaete worm (ragworm)!
TMay didn't lose an election, but she came damn close against Jeremy Fu**ing Corbyn. Liz Truss didn't lose an election, but her Premiership was a total catastrophe by virtually every other metric.
I'm not one to stick up for the Labour Party, but this only matters if Labour has ever had a leadership election where a woman was the best candidate but was voted down because of her gender.
Anything else is just meaningless tokenism.
The real story today is how this country has trashed Margaret's golden economic legacy in 35 years of lazy centrist quasi-socialism. And then is somehow surprised when it ends up with despairing politics and no growth.
Many of our current problems are the result of the uncritical perpetuation of a number of Thatcher's policy mistakes.
The impoverishment of the regions was a direct result of Mrs T's policies.
All policies have side-effects, many of which are not known at the time. Mrs T's policies were themselves reactions to problems and effects thrown up by policies and decisions her predecessors had made.
If Thatcher's policies had side-effects that still cause problems, the blame goes as much to her successors who did little, or nothing, to address those side-effects, either by fettling or getting rid of the policies. She resigned 35 years ago.
They also had direct negative effects which were pointed out at the time.
As with, for example, government confiscation of the right to buy proceeds, and the negatives of having privately owned monopoly utilities like the water companies - which were loudly protested for the same reasons they are judged today.
I don't absolve her successors from blame, far from it. But my criticism was directed at those who label her legacy "golden". It really was not.
Yes: but not doing the policies might also have had negative consequences, as was pointed out at the time. Continuing on as we had been in the 80s was not really a good option. And that's what Labour under Foot was offering.
I wouldn't say Thatcher's legacy was 'golden'; it was mixed. But IMO many of the changes she made were sadly necessary.
Failure to anticipate, perceive, care about, or do anything to mitigate the adverse consequences of her major changes, is the major black mark in her report.
As someone who was in the north for a chunk of this period, it was particularly the not caring about the consequences that upset a lot of people. Others in the government (notably Heseltine) could see the impact and did care, but had to fight hard to get support/agreement from Thatcher to do anything about it.
The contrast between the North East and London in say 1986 was very stark.
iirc Sir Geoffrey Howe, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer, later wondered if they had gone too far, caused too much harm.
TSE is right to highlight Thatchers greatest achievement, the Single Market and Single European Act.
She did get some things right.
And the link between the SM and the loss of 20% of our industrial base in a few years is not obvious to you? We went into the SM with an overpriced sterling, mainly thanks to peak oil output but augmented by the tight monetary policy which made Sterling attractive. The result was the annihilation of an uncompetitive industrial base which had been starved of investment by higher interest rates and was left with no protection whatsoever.
Like most of Thatcher's policies it was very good for the City of London which was highly competitive and proceeded to take a very large chunk of the financial services market for the whole of the EU but there was a price to pay and it was terrible.
Britain's mass manufacturing industry was surely in a downwards trend from long before the SM? Industrial policy decisions made in the sixties and seventies, if not before, along with changing technologies?
The SM may not have helped, but the trend was already well set in.
Inept management + over-powerful union barons, both exhibiting a total refusal to adapt = inevitable decline.
The British motorcycle industry is a classic example.
Indeed. Thatcher smashed the power of Trade Unions but did nothing about the inept and incompetent management. It was only with the implant of the Toyota plants in 1992 that we saw it did not have to be this way and even then we were incredibly slow to learn the lessons.
Toyota came to some extent because of the single market.
I agree. So did Nissan. But it did not offset the indigenous industrial losses by much.
Employment in manufacturing fell by half from 1979 -1997, but output was up 15% over that period. Overall, manufacturing output peaked in 2000 and 2018.
Yup manufacturing became a lot more productive in UK, those lessons in productivity should be applied to the public sector. The IFS was absolutely scathing about NHS productivity the other day, the Tories absolutely shat the bed there just as they did with immigration.
A piece about delays in fitting adaptations to homes for disabled or elderly - it's a scheme that has been around forever which can cover quite extensive alterations, but the waiting period is now just under a year.
(Following up a coincidental short note I posted last night about a pensioner T couple in there 70s who want to think about fitting a walk-in shower, but need to think about the pros and cons vs a big storage cupboard in their hall when I renovated I fitted with a desk, hanging, shelves and space for a tumble dryer.)
(For my money, for rented properties this should probably have a portion of LL copay for larger grants over say £10k, if it could be made to stick.)
Glad, in general that we refitted our bathroom to be a wet room, with a walk in shower..... although Mrs C still misses her bath. Didn't take long, either. The firm we used was quick and efficient.
Can I thank @OnlyLivingBoy for the link to Just Get a Tesla (which I won't be doing). A bit of feedback for Ian (whoever it is) - Heellllooooowwwww, (and I did the window-cleaner gesture).
3 - Since Scotland is just (finally) bringing in reporting via video footage you could potentially get a Careless or Not Under Proper Control ticket more easily now.
Your own existing footage should be OK as there is a very short delay for a PCN or other letter to be issues - in England and Wales the police have to issue a Request to Ownew within 14 days I think.
What is even the point of Starmer and Labour anymore?
They run the same cruel and spectacle oriented refugee policy as the previous government, the same red lines towards the EU as the previous government, the same Trump arse kissing policy as the tories and reform, basically blue politics from a labour platform.
Seriously, labour are running the biggest advertising campaign for the conservatives and reform. But if you want those policies why vote for a knock off like Labour when you can get the real deal?
Labour need to understand that doing populist blue policies will not keep reform out - those voters will hate labour no matter what they do. It doesn't come down to a rational calculation of policy benefit among individual voters - it is purely an identity issue. Populist voters largely support a party in the same way a football fan supports their team - through thick and thin. It is about belonging, not results. You can't buy those voters with blue politics.
Labour needs to get its own voters onside instead [insert gag reflex]. Seriously man, there isn't even polling data to show that the broad electorate want those things... on a topic by topic break down they want the opposite.
Labour just seem to be bad a doing politics.... what a bloody shit show they are offering up. It seems like they are soooo scared of power and won't believe in anything.
TMay didn't lose an election, but she came damn close against Jeremy Fu**ing Corbyn. Liz Truss didn't lose an election, but her Premiership was a total catastrophe by virtually every other metric.
I'm not one to stick up for the Labour Party, but this only matters if Labour has ever had a leadership election where a woman was the best candidate but was voted down because of her gender.
Anything else is just meaningless tokenism.
The real story today is how this country has trashed Margaret's golden economic legacy in 35 years of lazy centrist quasi-socialism. And then is somehow surprised when it ends up with despairing politics and no growth.
Many of our current problems are the result of the uncritical perpetuation of a number of Thatcher's policy mistakes.
The impoverishment of the regions was a direct result of Mrs T's policies.
Margaret Thatcher's economic policies, while aimed at revitalizing the British economy, resulted in several significant mistakes and negative consequences:
1. Severe recession and unemployment: Thatcher's strict monetarist policies, including high interest rates and taxes, led to an unnecessarily deep recession in 1981. This caused unemployment to rise to 3 million, particularly affecting the manufacturing sector[6].
2. Increased inequality: Thatcherite policies resulted in a dramatic upswing in inequality between the richest and poorest 10%. By 1991, the gap between the richest and poorest had hit a record high, with incomes soaring for the wealthiest and falling for the poorest[1][4].
3. Deindustrialization: Thatcher's policies wiped out 15% of the UK's industrial base in just a few years, leading to the loss of stable jobs in mining, manufacturing, and steel. This disproportionately affected regions like Scotland, which lost 20% of its workforce in Thatcher's first two years[4].
4. Underinvestment in infrastructure and skills: Thatcherism left the UK failing to properly think about long-run investment, especially in infrastructure and workforce skills. Over the past 40 years, Britain's record of investment in infrastructure and R&D has been among the weakest of any major economy[1][5].
5. Financial deregulation: Excessive deregulation of financial services, starting with the Big Bang in 1986, contributed to the 2007 financial crisis[1].
6. Privatization issues: The privatization of utilities did not maintain investment in national infrastructure as expected[5].
7. Weakening of trade unions: Thatcher's policies significantly undermined trade unions, making it harder for workers to strike and limiting their ability to negotiate for better working conditions. This led to a decrease in workers covered by collective agreements from 82% in 1979 to 35% by 1996[4].
8. Housing crisis: The Right to Buy scheme, while providing a short-term financial boost, ultimately dried up the government's supply of social housing, contributing to long-term housing accessibility issues[4].
9. Regional disparities: Thatcher's policies led to the devastation of swathes of the old industrial economy, bringing wide regional disparities that persist to this day[5].
10. Boom and bust cycle: The economic boom of the late 1980s under Thatcher and her chancellor Nigel Lawson was unsustainable, leading to high inflation and the recession of 1991[6].
These policy mistakes had long-lasting effects on the UK economy and society, contributing to increased inequality, regional economic disparities, and underinvestment in crucial areas of the economy.
AI thinks she's to blame for everything. Must be a socialist.
As against which, real per capita income was 43% higher in 1997 than in 1979; rates of home ownership rose strongly; and millions of new jobs were created to replace those in dying (and extremely unhealthy) industries.
Those new jobs often were created in the redeveloped areas. I've already given her credit for actually doing that. But look at the jobs - we replaced heavy industry with warehousing and call centres. You say those industries were dying and unhealthy - and yet they are still very much alive in the countries who didn't trash them for ideological reasons.
We can't go back to heavy manufacturing, but we can do light manufacturing. We have multiple industries we can excel at - creative arts, finance, technological innovation and energy. Combine the two and we should be developing the next waves of tech to harness power from light, wind and waves, building the kit here and exporting.
Instead we're arguing about how green energy is a lie, and installing wind turbines built elsewhere. Our lack of strategic vision is shocking.
You do know that manufacturing is about 25% of UK GDP right?
New Labour were just as bad as Thatcher for manufacturing...
That's precisely the point I'm trying to get across, rather than simply condemning Thatcher, which would in any event be both unfair, and counterproductive.
The problem with her legacy is that successive governments adopted large parts of it wholesale, without recognising the places where she went badly wrong.
TMay didn't lose an election, but she came damn close against Jeremy Fu**ing Corbyn. Liz Truss didn't lose an election, but her Premiership was a total catastrophe by virtually every other metric.
I'm not one to stick up for the Labour Party, but this only matters if Labour has ever had a leadership election where a woman was the best candidate but was voted down because of her gender.
Anything else is just meaningless tokenism.
The real story today is how this country has trashed Margaret's golden economic legacy in 35 years of lazy centrist quasi-socialism. And then is somehow surprised when it ends up with despairing politics and no growth.
Many of our current problems are the result of the uncritical perpetuation of a number of Thatcher's policy mistakes.
The impoverishment of the regions was a direct result of Mrs T's policies.
As is her role in our housing crisis.
40 years on we have BTL landlords rather than Social Housing.
40 years on we have BTL landlords rather than entrepreneurs and productive investment.
TBF 100 years ago we had BTL landlords and industrial investment. Though the former nearly caused a Red revolution and the latter wasn't nearly enough.
BTL landlordism is in decline, especially ahead of the upcoming legislation.
Some will welcome this, however it may well be be careful what you wish for.
TSE is right to highlight Thatchers greatest achievement, the Single Market and Single European Act.
She did get some things right.
And the link between the SM and the loss of 20% of our industrial base in a few years is not obvious to you? We went into the SM with an overpriced sterling, mainly thanks to peak oil output but augmented by the tight monetary policy which made Sterling attractive. The result was the annihilation of an uncompetitive industrial base which had been starved of investment by higher interest rates and was left with no protection whatsoever.
Like most of Thatcher's policies it was very good for the City of London which was highly competitive and proceeded to take a very large chunk of the financial services market for the whole of the EU but there was a price to pay and it was terrible.
Britain's mass manufacturing industry was surely in a downwards trend from long before the SM? Industrial policy decisions made in the sixties and seventies, if not before, along with changing technologies?
The SM may not have helped, but the trend was already well set in.
Inept management + over-powerful union barons, both exhibiting a total refusal to adapt = inevitable decline.
The British motorcycle industry is a classic example.
Indeed. Thatcher smashed the power of Trade Unions but did nothing about the inept and incompetent management. It was only with the implant of the Toyota plants in 1992 that we saw it did not have to be this way and even then we were incredibly slow to learn the lessons.
Toyota came to some extent because of the single market.
Thatcher put a lot of effort into attracting the foreign car firms.
There was a book written by someone in the industry - forgotten the author & title - which describes the bizarre feeling of management and workforce working together. All he’d known was conflict.
And many of the faces were the same on both sides. Yet with a different company culture…
Not only the Japanese car firms but also other manufacturing. White Goods, FMCG and the like.
TMay didn't lose an election, but she came damn close against Jeremy Fu**ing Corbyn. Liz Truss didn't lose an election, but her Premiership was a total catastrophe by virtually every other metric.
I'm not one to stick up for the Labour Party, but this only matters if Labour has ever had a leadership election where a woman was the best candidate but was voted down because of her gender.
Anything else is just meaningless tokenism.
The real story today is how this country has trashed Margaret's golden economic legacy in 35 years of lazy centrist quasi-socialism. And then is somehow surprised when it ends up with despairing politics and no growth.
Many of our current problems are the result of the uncritical perpetuation of a number of Thatcher's policy mistakes.
The impoverishment of the regions was a direct result of Mrs T's policies.
All policies have side-effects, many of which are not known at the time. Mrs T's policies were themselves reactions to problems and effects thrown up by policies and decisions her predecessors had made.
If Thatcher's policies had side-effects that still cause problems, the blame goes as much to her successors who did little, or nothing, to address those side-effects, either by fettling or getting rid of the policies. She resigned 35 years ago.
They also had direct negative effects which were pointed out at the time.
As with, for example, government confiscation of the right to buy proceeds, and the negatives of having privately owned monopoly utilities like the water companies - which were loudly protested for the same reasons they are judged today.
I don't absolve her successors from blame, far from it. But my criticism was directed at those who label her legacy "golden". It really was not.
Yes: but not doing the policies might also have had negative consequences, as was pointed out at the time. Continuing on as we had been in the 80s was not really a good option. And that's what Labour under Foot was offering.
I wouldn't say Thatcher's legacy was 'golden'; it was mixed. But IMO many of the changes she made were sadly necessary.
Failure to anticipate, perceive, care about, or do anything to mitigate the adverse consequences of her major changes, is the major black mark in her report.
As someone who was in the north for a chunk of this period, it was particularly the not caring about the consequences that upset a lot of people. Others in the government (notably Heseltine) could see the impact and did care, but had to fight hard to get support/agreement from Thatcher to do anything about it.
The contrast between the North East and London in say 1986 was very stark.
Yes, I grew up in Scotland and the NE of England and we used to stay with my grandparents in Surrey for a fortnight most summers. The contrast was striking, even for a child. Newcastle in the early 1980s was grim AF. And yes, the feeling that Thatcher didn't care, or worse, actively hated people in the North, was hard to avoid. The miners strike was the defining event of the period of course, and for Thatcher these working class people were 'the enemy within'. Surrey felt impossibly prosperous and complacent, by contrast.
Vance is addressing the AI conference in Paris and the looks on the looks on the faces of Macron, Von der Leyen, Trudeau and others are a picture of discomfort and struggling to control anger
Vance is addressing the AI conference in Paris and the looks on the looks on the faces of Macron, Von der Leyen, Trudeau and others are a picture of discomfort and struggling to control anger
What's he doing, issuing some "truth bombs" on the ROW and their love of overregulation and stifling innovation or spouting Trumpean tat ?
Vance is addressing the AI conference in Paris and the looks on the looks on the faces of Macron, Von der Leyen, Trudeau and others are a picture of discomfort and struggling to control anger
What's he doing, issuing some "truth bombs" on the ROW and their love of overregulation and stifling innovation or spouting Trumpean tat ?
TMay didn't lose an election, but she came damn close against Jeremy Fu**ing Corbyn. Liz Truss didn't lose an election, but her Premiership was a total catastrophe by virtually every other metric.
I'm not one to stick up for the Labour Party, but this only matters if Labour has ever had a leadership election where a woman was the best candidate but was voted down because of her gender.
Anything else is just meaningless tokenism.
The real story today is how this country has trashed Margaret's golden economic legacy in 35 years of lazy centrist quasi-socialism. And then is somehow surprised when it ends up with despairing politics and no growth.
Many of our current problems are the result of the uncritical perpetuation of a number of Thatcher's policy mistakes.
The impoverishment of the regions was a direct result of Mrs T's policies.
Margaret Thatcher's economic policies, while aimed at revitalizing the British economy, resulted in several significant mistakes and negative consequences:
1. Severe recession and unemployment: Thatcher's strict monetarist policies, including high interest rates and taxes, led to an unnecessarily deep recession in 1981. This caused unemployment to rise to 3 million, particularly affecting the manufacturing sector[6].
2. Increased inequality: Thatcherite policies resulted in a dramatic upswing in inequality between the richest and poorest 10%. By 1991, the gap between the richest and poorest had hit a record high, with incomes soaring for the wealthiest and falling for the poorest[1][4].
3. Deindustrialization: Thatcher's policies wiped out 15% of the UK's industrial base in just a few years, leading to the loss of stable jobs in mining, manufacturing, and steel. This disproportionately affected regions like Scotland, which lost 20% of its workforce in Thatcher's first two years[4].
4. Underinvestment in infrastructure and skills: Thatcherism left the UK failing to properly think about long-run investment, especially in infrastructure and workforce skills. Over the past 40 years, Britain's record of investment in infrastructure and R&D has been among the weakest of any major economy[1][5].
5. Financial deregulation: Excessive deregulation of financial services, starting with the Big Bang in 1986, contributed to the 2007 financial crisis[1].
6. Privatization issues: The privatization of utilities did not maintain investment in national infrastructure as expected[5].
7. Weakening of trade unions: Thatcher's policies significantly undermined trade unions, making it harder for workers to strike and limiting their ability to negotiate for better working conditions. This led to a decrease in workers covered by collective agreements from 82% in 1979 to 35% by 1996[4].
8. Housing crisis: The Right to Buy scheme, while providing a short-term financial boost, ultimately dried up the government's supply of social housing, contributing to long-term housing accessibility issues[4].
9. Regional disparities: Thatcher's policies led to the devastation of swathes of the old industrial economy, bringing wide regional disparities that persist to this day[5].
10. Boom and bust cycle: The economic boom of the late 1980s under Thatcher and her chancellor Nigel Lawson was unsustainable, leading to high inflation and the recession of 1991[6].
These policy mistakes had long-lasting effects on the UK economy and society, contributing to increased inequality, regional economic disparities, and underinvestment in crucial areas of the economy.
AI thinks she's to blame for everything. Must be a socialist.
As against which, real per capita income was 43% higher in 1997 than in 1979; rates of home ownership rose strongly; and millions of new jobs were created to replace those in dying (and extremely unhealthy) industries.
Those new jobs often were created in the redeveloped areas. I've already given her credit for actually doing that. But look at the jobs - we replaced heavy industry with warehousing and call centres. You say those industries were dying and unhealthy - and yet they are still very much alive in the countries who didn't trash them for ideological reasons.
We can't go back to heavy manufacturing, but we can do light manufacturing. We have multiple industries we can excel at - creative arts, finance, technological innovation and energy. Combine the two and we should be developing the next waves of tech to harness power from light, wind and waves, building the kit here and exporting.
Instead we're arguing about how green energy is a lie, and installing wind turbines built elsewhere. Our lack of strategic vision is shocking.
You do know that manufacturing is about 25% of UK GDP right?
New Labour were just as bad as Thatcher for manufacturing...
That's precisely the point I'm trying to get across, rather than simply condemning Thatcher, which would in any event be both unfair, and counterproductive.
The problem with her legacy is that successive governments adopted large parts of it wholesale, without recognising the places where she went badly wrong.
Not to mention that politicians have also imitated mythical Thatcher instead of reality Thatcher.
TMay didn't lose an election, but she came damn close against Jeremy Fu**ing Corbyn. Liz Truss didn't lose an election, but her Premiership was a total catastrophe by virtually every other metric.
I'm not one to stick up for the Labour Party, but this only matters if Labour has ever had a leadership election where a woman was the best candidate but was voted down because of her gender.
Anything else is just meaningless tokenism.
The real story today is how this country has trashed Margaret's golden economic legacy in 35 years of lazy centrist quasi-socialism. And then is somehow surprised when it ends up with despairing politics and no growth.
Many of our current problems are the result of the uncritical perpetuation of a number of Thatcher's policy mistakes.
The impoverishment of the regions was a direct result of Mrs T's policies.
All policies have side-effects, many of which are not known at the time. Mrs T's policies were themselves reactions to problems and effects thrown up by policies and decisions her predecessors had made.
If Thatcher's policies had side-effects that still cause problems, the blame goes as much to her successors who did little, or nothing, to address those side-effects, either by fettling or getting rid of the policies. She resigned 35 years ago.
They also had direct negative effects which were pointed out at the time.
As with, for example, government confiscation of the right to buy proceeds, and the negatives of having privately owned monopoly utilities like the water companies - which were loudly protested for the same reasons they are judged today.
I don't absolve her successors from blame, far from it. But my criticism was directed at those who label her legacy "golden". It really was not.
Yes: but not doing the policies might also have had negative consequences, as was pointed out at the time. Continuing on as we had been in the 80s was not really a good option. And that's what Labour under Foot was offering.
I wouldn't say Thatcher's legacy was 'golden'; it was mixed. But IMO many of the changes she made were sadly necessary.
Failure to anticipate, perceive, care about, or do anything to mitigate the adverse consequences of her major changes, is the major black mark in her report.
I think they did try. Regeneration was a big word in Thatcher's time.
It's just that the malaise was so deep, and the problems so complex, that it was not something that could be done overnight.
TMay didn't lose an election, but she came damn close against Jeremy Fu**ing Corbyn. Liz Truss didn't lose an election, but her Premiership was a total catastrophe by virtually every other metric.
I'm not one to stick up for the Labour Party, but this only matters if Labour has ever had a leadership election where a woman was the best candidate but was voted down because of her gender.
Anything else is just meaningless tokenism.
The real story today is how this country has trashed Margaret's golden economic legacy in 35 years of lazy centrist quasi-socialism. And then is somehow surprised when it ends up with despairing politics and no growth.
"..., but this only matters if Labour has ever had a leadership election where a woman was the best candidate but was voted down because of her gender."
Why is Labour in a position where a woman has never been the best candidate? What has traditionally stopped women from reaching the top of the party? Why can the Conservatives repeatedly manage it, but Labour can not, especially given that Labour usually has more female MPs.
The problem might not be at the top, but lower down in the hierarchy.
That is a good point, but it doesn't seem to be the case.
The pool from which leaders come, presumably the Cabinet/Shadow Cabinet, in Labour, has more women than the Conservative equivalent, at 53% vs 33%. I think this has generally been the case over the last 30 years. And that is reflected in the statistics for councillors and, as you point out, MPs (46% vs about 20%).
So it doesn't seem to be true that women are discriminated against lower down the hierarchy, and that seems very unlikely to be the reason that Labour has not elected a female leader. If there is any discrimination, it's only at the leadership level, at least unless you can make the case that the party deliberately only allows mediocre women to progress up its hierarchy so that they will fail at the final hurdle. And I doubt that - apart from its inherent implausibility, Labour women aren't obviously more mediocre than Labour men.
What it does perhaps show is yet another instance of woke, socialist inconsistency - Labour is obviously desperate to impose quotas and other crap on the rest of us, while failing to implement them for itself, at any rate for the post that really counts.
But that socialists are hypocrites is hardly news.
Amount of road closures in Sheffield is bonkers considering they've got whoever it is holed up in their flat apparently. And apparently he's only a danger to himself (Well that's what they're saying), that can't be true with the amount of road closures and so on around. Feels like they're overdoing it after the Willgoose tragedy tbh. Needs a SWAT team if they're not getting anywhere imo.
TMay didn't lose an election, but she came damn close against Jeremy Fu**ing Corbyn. Liz Truss didn't lose an election, but her Premiership was a total catastrophe by virtually every other metric.
I'm not one to stick up for the Labour Party, but this only matters if Labour has ever had a leadership election where a woman was the best candidate but was voted down because of her gender.
Anything else is just meaningless tokenism.
The real story today is how this country has trashed Margaret's golden economic legacy in 35 years of lazy centrist quasi-socialism. And then is somehow surprised when it ends up with despairing politics and no growth.
Many of our current problems are the result of the uncritical perpetuation of a number of Thatcher's policy mistakes.
The impoverishment of the regions was a direct result of Mrs T's policies.
Margaret Thatcher's economic policies, while aimed at revitalizing the British economy, resulted in several significant mistakes and negative consequences:
1. Severe recession and unemployment: Thatcher's strict monetarist policies, including high interest rates and taxes, led to an unnecessarily deep recession in 1981. This caused unemployment to rise to 3 million, particularly affecting the manufacturing sector[6].
2. Increased inequality: Thatcherite policies resulted in a dramatic upswing in inequality between the richest and poorest 10%. By 1991, the gap between the richest and poorest had hit a record high, with incomes soaring for the wealthiest and falling for the poorest[1][4].
3. Deindustrialization: Thatcher's policies wiped out 15% of the UK's industrial base in just a few years, leading to the loss of stable jobs in mining, manufacturing, and steel. This disproportionately affected regions like Scotland, which lost 20% of its workforce in Thatcher's first two years[4].
4. Underinvestment in infrastructure and skills: Thatcherism left the UK failing to properly think about long-run investment, especially in infrastructure and workforce skills. Over the past 40 years, Britain's record of investment in infrastructure and R&D has been among the weakest of any major economy[1][5].
5. Financial deregulation: Excessive deregulation of financial services, starting with the Big Bang in 1986, contributed to the 2007 financial crisis[1].
6. Privatization issues: The privatization of utilities did not maintain investment in national infrastructure as expected[5].
7. Weakening of trade unions: Thatcher's policies significantly undermined trade unions, making it harder for workers to strike and limiting their ability to negotiate for better working conditions. This led to a decrease in workers covered by collective agreements from 82% in 1979 to 35% by 1996[4].
8. Housing crisis: The Right to Buy scheme, while providing a short-term financial boost, ultimately dried up the government's supply of social housing, contributing to long-term housing accessibility issues[4].
9. Regional disparities: Thatcher's policies led to the devastation of swathes of the old industrial economy, bringing wide regional disparities that persist to this day[5].
10. Boom and bust cycle: The economic boom of the late 1980s under Thatcher and her chancellor Nigel Lawson was unsustainable, leading to high inflation and the recession of 1991[6].
These policy mistakes had long-lasting effects on the UK economy and society, contributing to increased inequality, regional economic disparities, and underinvestment in crucial areas of the economy.
AI thinks she's to blame for everything. Must be a socialist.
As against which, real per capita income was 43% higher in 1997 than in 1979; rates of home ownership rose strongly; and millions of new jobs were created to replace those in dying (and extremely unhealthy) industries.
Those new jobs often were created in the redeveloped areas. I've already given her credit for actually doing that. But look at the jobs - we replaced heavy industry with warehousing and call centres. You say those industries were dying and unhealthy - and yet they are still very much alive in the countries who didn't trash them for ideological reasons.
We can't go back to heavy manufacturing, but we can do light manufacturing. We have multiple industries we can excel at - creative arts, finance, technological innovation and energy. Combine the two and we should be developing the next waves of tech to harness power from light, wind and waves, building the kit here and exporting.
Instead we're arguing about how green energy is a lie, and installing wind turbines built elsewhere. Our lack of strategic vision is shocking.
You do know that manufacturing is about 25% of UK GDP right?
New Labour were just as bad as Thatcher for manufacturing...
That's precisely the point I'm trying to get across, rather than simply condemning Thatcher, which would in any event be both unfair, and counterproductive.
The problem with her legacy is that successive governments adopted large parts of it wholesale, without recognising the places where she went badly wrong.
Not to mention that politicians have also imitated mythical Thatcher instead of reality Thatcher.
Liz Truss being a prime example.
Cargo Cult Thatcherism was the aposite phrase I recall.
Amount of road closures in Sheffield is bonkers considering they've got whoever it is holed up in their flat apparently. And apparently he's only a danger to himself (Well that's what they're saying), that can't be true with the amount of road closures and so on around. Feels like they're overdoing it after the Willgoose tragedy tbh.
Simple urban geometry? Closing all the roads which go through the danger area means closing them end to end, even if they go through the danger area for only part of the way - which may mean closing a lot of road for expressways etc.
This morning I'm quite enjoying the name of a Bluesky acquaintance who does not like Nonny Nonny Nigel, and uses Eulalia as their account name.
Very Woosteresque.
Almost far enough back in the past the reach the time when a lot of British Popular Newspapers and Highbrow Magazines were still dribbling all over Mussolini.
But not quite Woosteresque - which was Eulalie with an e. Probably just as well else one might be looking for a coded meaning!
That sounds suitably coded with a one letter substitution !
TBF Eulalia was the original Roman spelling - it's a saint's name. Several possible allusions there. Though I assume not the polychaete worm (ragworm)!
They knew how to punish non-believers in those days.
The UK changed massively in the 1980s. I don't think I would have been able to do what I did in the 30 years subsequent to that without this cultural shift, so on a personal level I am forever grateful to it. Whether it was good for the country as whole, I am less sure about. We are still living with many of the consequences of the rapid and unchecked deindustrialisation that caused so much damage across many parts of the Midlands and the North. It's hard to believe the bonanza of North Sea oil could not have been better used. However, change was needed.
One legacy I definitely wish we would get rid of is this idea that business leaders know what they are talking about. Given the terrible, short-term decisions so many of them have made over so many years, that is absolutely not the case.
Amount of road closures in Sheffield is bonkers considering they've got whoever it is holed up in their flat apparently. And apparently he's only a danger to himself (Well that's what they're saying), that can't be true with the amount of road closures and so on around. Feels like they're overdoing it after the Willgoose tragedy tbh. Needs a SWAT team if they're not getting anywhere imo.
Half of our tenth largest city shut down and not a peep on the BBC news homepage - even if you're set to Yorkshire. They do have a very important story about professional dog walkers being banned from some land tho'.
TMay didn't lose an election, but she came damn close against Jeremy Fu**ing Corbyn. Liz Truss didn't lose an election, but her Premiership was a total catastrophe by virtually every other metric.
I'm not one to stick up for the Labour Party, but this only matters if Labour has ever had a leadership election where a woman was the best candidate but was voted down because of her gender.
Anything else is just meaningless tokenism.
The real story today is how this country has trashed Margaret's golden economic legacy in 35 years of lazy centrist quasi-socialism. And then is somehow surprised when it ends up with despairing politics and no growth.
Many of our current problems are the result of the uncritical perpetuation of a number of Thatcher's policy mistakes.
The impoverishment of the regions was a direct result of Mrs T's policies.
All policies have side-effects, many of which are not known at the time. Mrs T's policies were themselves reactions to problems and effects thrown up by policies and decisions her predecessors had made.
If Thatcher's policies had side-effects that still cause problems, the blame goes as much to her successors who did little, or nothing, to address those side-effects, either by fettling or getting rid of the policies. She resigned 35 years ago.
They also had direct negative effects which were pointed out at the time.
As with, for example, government confiscation of the right to buy proceeds, and the negatives of having privately owned monopoly utilities like the water companies - which were loudly protested for the same reasons they are judged today.
I don't absolve her successors from blame, far from it. But my criticism was directed at those who label her legacy "golden". It really was not.
Yes: but not doing the policies might also have had negative consequences, as was pointed out at the time. Continuing on as we had been in the 80s was not really a good option. And that's what Labour under Foot was offering.
I wouldn't say Thatcher's legacy was 'golden'; it was mixed. But IMO many of the changes she made were sadly necessary.
Failure to anticipate, perceive, care about, or do anything to mitigate the adverse consequences of her major changes, is the major black mark in her report.
I think they did try. Regeneration was a big word in Thatcher's time.
It's just that the malaise was so deep, and the problems so complex, that it was not something that could be done overnight.
So how long will it take to finish?
Regeneration never finishes because there are always new problems as the world changes.
For example grotty town centres are a problem over much of the country but they are a problem caused by the internet.
There's also differences between the types of old industrial areas - mining areas being significantly different to textile towns and both being different to industrial cities.
Certainly mining areas in Yorkshire and the midlands are now pretty nicely regenerated and far superior in many respects to what they were either a generation or two ago.
Although those in north-east England seem to have done less well.
TMay didn't lose an election, but she came damn close against Jeremy Fu**ing Corbyn. Liz Truss didn't lose an election, but her Premiership was a total catastrophe by virtually every other metric.
I'm not one to stick up for the Labour Party, but this only matters if Labour has ever had a leadership election where a woman was the best candidate but was voted down because of her gender.
Anything else is just meaningless tokenism.
The real story today is how this country has trashed Margaret's golden economic legacy in 35 years of lazy centrist quasi-socialism. And then is somehow surprised when it ends up with despairing politics and no growth.
Many of our current problems are the result of the uncritical perpetuation of a number of Thatcher's policy mistakes.
The impoverishment of the regions was a direct result of Mrs T's policies.
All policies have side-effects, many of which are not known at the time. Mrs T's policies were themselves reactions to problems and effects thrown up by policies and decisions her predecessors had made.
If Thatcher's policies had side-effects that still cause problems, the blame goes as much to her successors who did little, or nothing, to address those side-effects, either by fettling or getting rid of the policies. She resigned 35 years ago.
They also had direct negative effects which were pointed out at the time.
As with, for example, government confiscation of the right to buy proceeds, and the negatives of having privately owned monopoly utilities like the water companies - which were loudly protested for the same reasons they are judged today.
I don't absolve her successors from blame, far from it. But my criticism was directed at those who label her legacy "golden". It really was not.
Yes: but not doing the policies might also have had negative consequences, as was pointed out at the time. Continuing on as we had been in the 80s was not really a good option. And that's what Labour under Foot was offering.
I wouldn't say Thatcher's legacy was 'golden'; it was mixed. But IMO many of the changes she made were sadly necessary.
Failure to anticipate, perceive, care about, or do anything to mitigate the adverse consequences of her major changes, is the major black mark in her report.
As someone who was in the north for a chunk of this period, it was particularly the not caring about the consequences that upset a lot of people. Others in the government (notably Heseltine) could see the impact and did care, but had to fight hard to get support/agreement from Thatcher to do anything about it.
The contrast between the North East and London in say 1986 was very stark.
Yes, I grew up in Scotland and the NE of England and we used to stay with my grandparents in Surrey for a fortnight most summers. The contrast was striking, even for a child. Newcastle in the early 1980s was grim AF. And yes, the feeling that Thatcher didn't care, or worse, actively hated people in the North, was hard to avoid. The miners strike was the defining event of the period of course, and for Thatcher these working class people were 'the enemy within'. Surrey felt impossibly prosperous and complacent, by contrast.
Indeed, my home area was also Surrey/SW London and returning to visit family was like entering another world compared to the NE and most of the urban north. Although, as @IanB2 also pointed out, parts of London could match anything the north had to offer and looking back at old films from the 80s makes you realise how scruffy a lot of it had become. You tend to forget when you live somewhere for a long time that it has changed imperceptibly around you.
Amount of road closures in Sheffield is bonkers considering they've got whoever it is holed up in their flat apparently. And apparently he's only a danger to himself (Well that's what they're saying), that can't be true with the amount of road closures and so on around. Feels like they're overdoing it after the Willgoose tragedy tbh. Needs a SWAT team if they're not getting anywhere imo.
Half of our tenth largest city shut down and not a peep on the BBC news homepage - even if you're set to Yorkshire. They do have a very important story about professional dog walkers being banned from some land tho'.
It's there all right, one of the two top stories on the England page.
What is even the point of Starmer and Labour anymore?
They run the same cruel and spectacle oriented refugee policy as the previous government, the same red lines towards the EU as the previous government, the same Trump arse kissing policy as the tories and reform, basically blue politics from a labour platform.
Seriously, labour are running the biggest advertising campaign for the conservatives and reform. But if you want those policies why vote for a knock off like Labour when you can get the real deal?
Labour need to understand that doing populist blue policies will not keep reform out - those voters will hate labour no matter what they do. It doesn't come down to a rational calculation of policy benefit among individual voters - it is purely an identity issue. Populist voters largely support a party in the same way a football fan supports their team - through thick and thin. It is about belonging, not results. You can't buy those voters with blue politics.
Labour needs to get its own voters onside instead [insert gag reflex]. Seriously man, there isn't even polling data to show that the broad electorate want those things... on a topic by topic break down they want the opposite.
Labour just seem to be bad a doing politics.... what a bloody shit show they are offering up. It seems like they are soooo scared of power and won't believe in anything.
Instinctively I'm on your side on this - I do think that more emphasis is need on positive objectives that we can get behind, rather than a sense of ineffective crisis management. But the position on campaigning is less clear - there is a chunk of voters who want *some* attention given to stabilising and civilising inward migration, without embracing the full Reform agenda. Most voters don't instinctively mind a steady influx of people who are in desperate need and/or fill gaps in the economy, but they don't feel that selection by who is up for a Channel boats crossing is the way to do it. Labour needs to do enough to make it clear that alternative routes are both safer AND more likely to succeed.
That's why Reform is doing well - not that there is a huge bloc of voters who have always voted for similar parties (the *lack* of voters who support a particular anti-immgration party through thick and thin is actually striking), but that lots of voters feel that immigration issues are not being tackled at all. I'm not against a few videos showing that the issue is being addressed, so long as they're balanced by positive videos showing a coherent long-term strategy.
Amount of road closures in Sheffield is bonkers considering they've got whoever it is holed up in their flat apparently. And apparently he's only a danger to himself (Well that's what they're saying), that can't be true with the amount of road closures and so on around. Feels like they're overdoing it after the Willgoose tragedy tbh. Needs a SWAT team if they're not getting anywhere imo.
Half of our tenth largest city shut down and not a peep on the BBC news homepage - even if you're set to Yorkshire. They do have a very important story about professional dog walkers being banned from some land tho'.
It's there all right, one of the two top stories on the England page.
How dare they, this is a British story for British people!
Good on this school, I would have died of embarrassment if I had scored below 90% in a maths test.
A school's policy of giving detentions to top set pupils who score below 90% on maths homework has been described as "overtly cruel" by a parent.
Joseph's son is in Year 7 at Stewards Academy in Harlow, Essex, and scored 13 out of 16 for his maths homework, which is 81%.
"I thought [the detention] was unjustified: I've worked with children and I find trying to foster aptitude through negative reinforcement doesn't really work," he said.
Head teacher Stephen Drew – who appeared on the TV series Educating Essex, external – said the school offered homework support and "the work is set at a level that reflects exactly what they've been taught in the previous week".
Good on this school, I would have died of embarrassment if I had scored below 90% in a maths test.
A school's policy of giving detentions to top set pupils who score below 90% on maths homework has been described as "overtly cruel" by a parent.
Joseph's son is in Year 7 at Stewards Academy in Harlow, Essex, and scored 13 out of 16 for his maths homework, which is 81%.
"I thought [the detention] was unjustified: I've worked with children and I find trying to foster aptitude through negative reinforcement doesn't really work," he said.
Head teacher Stephen Drew – who appeared on the TV series Educating Essex, external – said the school offered homework support and "the work is set at a level that reflects exactly what they've been taught in the previous week".
Good on this school, I would have died of embarrassment if I had scored below 90% in a maths test.
A school's policy of giving detentions to top set pupils who score below 90% on maths homework has been described as "overtly cruel" by a parent.
Joseph's son is in Year 7 at Stewards Academy in Harlow, Essex, and scored 13 out of 16 for his maths homework, which is 81%.
"I thought [the detention] was unjustified: I've worked with children and I find trying to foster aptitude through negative reinforcement doesn't really work," he said.
Head teacher Stephen Drew – who appeared on the TV series Educating Essex, external – said the school offered homework support and "the work is set at a level that reflects exactly what they've been taught in the previous week".
Maybe the headmaster neds a maths lesson. His effective pass mark is 93.75%.
My concern would be if the 3 questions are all related because it’s a bit unfair to get a detention if you simply haven’t grasped one bit and there are 3 questions using it
Reality is it’s maths though so anything that isn’t 100% should be a detention if you follow the headmasters argument
TMay didn't lose an election, but she came damn close against Jeremy Fu**ing Corbyn. Liz Truss didn't lose an election, but her Premiership was a total catastrophe by virtually every other metric.
I'm not one to stick up for the Labour Party, but this only matters if Labour has ever had a leadership election where a woman was the best candidate but was voted down because of her gender.
Anything else is just meaningless tokenism.
The real story today is how this country has trashed Margaret's golden economic legacy in 35 years of lazy centrist quasi-socialism. And then is somehow surprised when it ends up with despairing politics and no growth.
Many of our current problems are the result of the uncritical perpetuation of a number of Thatcher's policy mistakes.
The impoverishment of the regions was a direct result of Mrs T's policies.
All policies have side-effects, many of which are not known at the time. Mrs T's policies were themselves reactions to problems and effects thrown up by policies and decisions her predecessors had made.
If Thatcher's policies had side-effects that still cause problems, the blame goes as much to her successors who did little, or nothing, to address those side-effects, either by fettling or getting rid of the policies. She resigned 35 years ago.
They also had direct negative effects which were pointed out at the time.
As with, for example, government confiscation of the right to buy proceeds, and the negatives of having privately owned monopoly utilities like the water companies - which were loudly protested for the same reasons they are judged today.
I don't absolve her successors from blame, far from it. But my criticism was directed at those who label her legacy "golden". It really was not.
Yes: but not doing the policies might also have had negative consequences, as was pointed out at the time. Continuing on as we had been in the 80s was not really a good option. And that's what Labour under Foot was offering.
I wouldn't say Thatcher's legacy was 'golden'; it was mixed. But IMO many of the changes she made were sadly necessary.
Failure to anticipate, perceive, care about, or do anything to mitigate the adverse consequences of her major changes, is the major black mark in her report.
As someone who was in the north for a chunk of this period, it was particularly the not caring about the consequences that upset a lot of people. Others in the government (notably Heseltine) could see the impact and did care, but had to fight hard to get support/agreement from Thatcher to do anything about it.
The contrast between the North East and London in say 1986 was very stark.
Yes, I grew up in Scotland and the NE of England and we used to stay with my grandparents in Surrey for a fortnight most summers. The contrast was striking, even for a child. Newcastle in the early 1980s was grim AF. And yes, the feeling that Thatcher didn't care, or worse, actively hated people in the North, was hard to avoid. The miners strike was the defining event of the period of course, and for Thatcher these working class people were 'the enemy within'. Surrey felt impossibly prosperous and complacent, by contrast.
Indeed, my home area was also Surrey/SW London and returning to visit family was like entering another world compared to the NE and most of the urban north. Although, as @IanB2 also pointed out, parts of London could match anything the north had to offer and looking back at old films from the 80s makes you realise how scruffy a lot of it had become. You tend to forget when you live somewhere for a long time that it has changed imperceptibly around you.
Yes, this is why I like the 52 year old Bakerloo Line trains. They remind me of when we used to get the tube from Kings Cross to Waterloo during those summers. The tube was so scruffy in those days, and the rackety old Bakerloo Line trains are the last link back to those times.
TMay didn't lose an election, but she came damn close against Jeremy Fu**ing Corbyn. Liz Truss didn't lose an election, but her Premiership was a total catastrophe by virtually every other metric.
I'm not one to stick up for the Labour Party, but this only matters if Labour has ever had a leadership election where a woman was the best candidate but was voted down because of her gender.
Anything else is just meaningless tokenism.
The real story today is how this country has trashed Margaret's golden economic legacy in 35 years of lazy centrist quasi-socialism. And then is somehow surprised when it ends up with despairing politics and no growth.
Many of our current problems are the result of the uncritical perpetuation of a number of Thatcher's policy mistakes.
The impoverishment of the regions was a direct result of Mrs T's policies.
All policies have side-effects, many of which are not known at the time. Mrs T's policies were themselves reactions to problems and effects thrown up by policies and decisions her predecessors had made.
If Thatcher's policies had side-effects that still cause problems, the blame goes as much to her successors who did little, or nothing, to address those side-effects, either by fettling or getting rid of the policies. She resigned 35 years ago.
They also had direct negative effects which were pointed out at the time.
As with, for example, government confiscation of the right to buy proceeds, and the negatives of having privately owned monopoly utilities like the water companies - which were loudly protested for the same reasons they are judged today.
I don't absolve her successors from blame, far from it. But my criticism was directed at those who label her legacy "golden". It really was not.
Yes: but not doing the policies might also have had negative consequences, as was pointed out at the time. Continuing on as we had been in the 80s was not really a good option. And that's what Labour under Foot was offering.
I wouldn't say Thatcher's legacy was 'golden'; it was mixed. But IMO many of the changes she made were sadly necessary.
Failure to anticipate, perceive, care about, or do anything to mitigate the adverse consequences of her major changes, is the major black mark in her report.
I think they did try. Regeneration was a big word in Thatcher's time.
It's just that the malaise was so deep, and the problems so complex, that it was not something that could be done overnight.
So how long will it take to finish?
Regeneration never finishes because there are always new problems as the world changes.
For example grotty town centres are a problem over much of the country but they are a problem caused by the internet.
There's also differences between the types of old industrial areas - mining areas being significantly different to textile towns and both being different to industrial cities.
Certainly mining areas in Yorkshire and the midlands are now pretty nicely regenerated and far superior in many respects to what they were either a generation or two ago.
Although those in north-east England seem to have done less well.
Yet none of Thatcher, May and Truss lost a General Election - they were all sacked by their own party and especially by the Parliamentary Party which I suspect was overwhelmingly male.
Badenoch to follow soon too.
3 failures and one with a mixed legacy that caused most of the structural economic problems of our rimes.
So, slightly better than the men then?
All political careers end in failure, but some end with a bang and some with a whimper.
Yet none of Thatcher, May and Truss lost a General Election - they were all sacked by their own party and especially by the Parliamentary Party which I suspect was overwhelmingly male.
Badenoch to follow soon too.
3 failures and one with a mixed legacy that caused most of the structural economic problems of our rimes.
So, slightly better than the men then?
I think the Tory craving for a cos-play Maggie is why they are stuck with such a bad run of leaders. Usually cheered on by those who fail to understand what Thatcher did in the first place.
I remember going into a customer's office circa 2005 during Blair's purple patch period (Blair was not yet vilified to the extent he was through the Conservative years) and seeing a signed photo of Thatcher on his wall ( the customer's walI, not Blair's) was naive enough to think it was a piss take, but no he had PB levels of Thatcher enthusiasm.
I suspect Thatcher's ghostly star ascended highest as various Conservative Prime Ministers disappointed exponentially. The same process seems to have started happening with Blair
Surely they just need to "make less profit" as some have said.
"Britain’s biggest retailers have warned that the high street will shed at least 300,000 jobs over the next three years in a blow to the Chancellor’s hopes of reviving local town and city centres.
Retailers including Marks & Spencer, Sainsbury’s and Tesco have fired a warning shot over the future of the industry, saying a “perfect storm” of higher costs and red tape meant they expected one in 10 shop floor workers to leave retail by 2028."
Suspect the simple answer to the header, is just to change the definitions. That's the Labour way.
We've a health minister who believes people can become llamas, wants to get rid of same sex bathrooms and thinks women can have penises. A foreign secretary who thinks men can grow a cervix.
And now we have a financially strapped NHS that is pumping in money into a court case to support a male doctor who believes that he is a woman and that biological sex is a nebulous idea. All so that he can get his kit off in the women's changing room. (Odd that if biological sex is nebulous, it's always the women's changing room he ends up in.)
So the answer to the problem is simple. Whoever is the next leader, just declare them as female and most of the Labour party will fall in line. Then accuse anyone who dares to suggest otherwise of whatever ....phobia they can.
TMay didn't lose an election, but she came damn close against Jeremy Fu**ing Corbyn. Liz Truss didn't lose an election, but her Premiership was a total catastrophe by virtually every other metric.
I'm not one to stick up for the Labour Party, but this only matters if Labour has ever had a leadership election where a woman was the best candidate but was voted down because of her gender.
Anything else is just meaningless tokenism.
The real story today is how this country has trashed Margaret's golden economic legacy in 35 years of lazy centrist quasi-socialism. And then is somehow surprised when it ends up with despairing politics and no growth.
Many of our current problems are the result of the uncritical perpetuation of a number of Thatcher's policy mistakes.
The impoverishment of the regions was a direct result of Mrs T's policies.
All policies have side-effects, many of which are not known at the time. Mrs T's policies were themselves reactions to problems and effects thrown up by policies and decisions her predecessors had made.
If Thatcher's policies had side-effects that still cause problems, the blame goes as much to her successors who did little, or nothing, to address those side-effects, either by fettling or getting rid of the policies. She resigned 35 years ago.
They also had direct negative effects which were pointed out at the time.
As with, for example, government confiscation of the right to buy proceeds, and the negatives of having privately owned monopoly utilities like the water companies - which were loudly protested for the same reasons they are judged today.
I don't absolve her successors from blame, far from it. But my criticism was directed at those who label her legacy "golden". It really was not.
Yes: but not doing the policies might also have had negative consequences, as was pointed out at the time. Continuing on as we had been in the 80s was not really a good option. And that's what Labour under Foot was offering.
I wouldn't say Thatcher's legacy was 'golden'; it was mixed. But IMO many of the changes she made were sadly necessary.
Failure to anticipate, perceive, care about, or do anything to mitigate the adverse consequences of her major changes, is the major black mark in her report.
As someone who was in the north for a chunk of this period, it was particularly the not caring about the consequences that upset a lot of people. Others in the government (notably Heseltine) could see the impact and did care, but had to fight hard to get support/agreement from Thatcher to do anything about it.
The contrast between the North East and London in say 1986 was very stark.
Yes, I grew up in Scotland and the NE of England and we used to stay with my grandparents in Surrey for a fortnight most summers. The contrast was striking, even for a child. Newcastle in the early 1980s was grim AF. And yes, the feeling that Thatcher didn't care, or worse, actively hated people in the North, was hard to avoid. The miners strike was the defining event of the period of course, and for Thatcher these working class people were 'the enemy within'. Surrey felt impossibly prosperous and complacent, by contrast.
Indeed, my home area was also Surrey/SW London and returning to visit family was like entering another world compared to the NE and most of the urban north. Although, as @IanB2 also pointed out, parts of London could match anything the north had to offer and looking back at old films from the 80s makes you realise how scruffy a lot of it had become. You tend to forget when you live somewhere for a long time that it has changed imperceptibly around you.
Just watch some of the Euston Films stuff from the mid seventies. The latter two seasons of Special Branch or The Sweeney for example. London looks very dilapidated and very unloved. Even seventies episodes of Dixon of Dock Green the location footage shows a London that looks like it was only going backwards.
TMay didn't lose an election, but she came damn close against Jeremy Fu**ing Corbyn. Liz Truss didn't lose an election, but her Premiership was a total catastrophe by virtually every other metric.
I'm not one to stick up for the Labour Party, but this only matters if Labour has ever had a leadership election where a woman was the best candidate but was voted down because of her gender.
Anything else is just meaningless tokenism.
The real story today is how this country has trashed Margaret's golden economic legacy in 35 years of lazy centrist quasi-socialism. And then is somehow surprised when it ends up with despairing politics and no growth.
Many of our current problems are the result of the uncritical perpetuation of a number of Thatcher's policy mistakes.
The impoverishment of the regions was a direct result of Mrs T's policies.
All policies have side-effects, many of which are not known at the time. Mrs T's policies were themselves reactions to problems and effects thrown up by policies and decisions her predecessors had made.
If Thatcher's policies had side-effects that still cause problems, the blame goes as much to her successors who did little, or nothing, to address those side-effects, either by fettling or getting rid of the policies. She resigned 35 years ago.
They also had direct negative effects which were pointed out at the time.
As with, for example, government confiscation of the right to buy proceeds, and the negatives of having privately owned monopoly utilities like the water companies - which were loudly protested for the same reasons they are judged today.
I don't absolve her successors from blame, far from it. But my criticism was directed at those who label her legacy "golden". It really was not.
Yes: but not doing the policies might also have had negative consequences, as was pointed out at the time. Continuing on as we had been in the 80s was not really a good option. And that's what Labour under Foot was offering.
I wouldn't say Thatcher's legacy was 'golden'; it was mixed. But IMO many of the changes she made were sadly necessary.
Failure to anticipate, perceive, care about, or do anything to mitigate the adverse consequences of her major changes, is the major black mark in her report.
As someone who was in the north for a chunk of this period, it was particularly the not caring about the consequences that upset a lot of people. Others in the government (notably Heseltine) could see the impact and did care, but had to fight hard to get support/agreement from Thatcher to do anything about it.
The contrast between the North East and London in say 1986 was very stark.
Yes, I grew up in Scotland and the NE of England and we used to stay with my grandparents in Surrey for a fortnight most summers. The contrast was striking, even for a child. Newcastle in the early 1980s was grim AF. And yes, the feeling that Thatcher didn't care, or worse, actively hated people in the North, was hard to avoid. The miners strike was the defining event of the period of course, and for Thatcher these working class people were 'the enemy within'. Surrey felt impossibly prosperous and complacent, by contrast.
Indeed, my home area was also Surrey/SW London and returning to visit family was like entering another world compared to the NE and most of the urban north. Although, as @IanB2 also pointed out, parts of London could match anything the north had to offer and looking back at old films from the 80s makes you realise how scruffy a lot of it had become. You tend to forget when you live somewhere for a long time that it has changed imperceptibly around you.
Yes, this is why I like the 52 year old Bakerloo Line trains. They remind me of when we used to get the tube from Kings Cross to Waterloo during those summers. The tube was so scruffy in those days, and the rackety old Bakerloo Line trains are the last link back to those times.
We had the 1930s Bakerloo trains on our Island Line until just a few years back. Now replaced by refurbished 1980s Metropolitan Line stock.
Meanwhile in the USA Donald Trump signs an Executive Order reintroducing single use plastic straws.
I suppose at least trifles like plastic straws stop him stirring the fragile Gaza ceasefire pot. Oh wait...
Can he now sign one on plastic bottle tops.
Perhaps he is constructing a visible-from-space plastic footbridge of single use plastic detritus across the Pacific. On the plus side it would be significantly cheaper than Boris Johnson's invisible footbridge across the Thames.
Good on this school, I would have died of embarrassment if I had scored below 90% in a maths test.
A school's policy of giving detentions to top set pupils who score below 90% on maths homework has been described as "overtly cruel" by a parent.
Joseph's son is in Year 7 at Stewards Academy in Harlow, Essex, and scored 13 out of 16 for his maths homework, which is 81%.
"I thought [the detention] was unjustified: I've worked with children and I find trying to foster aptitude through negative reinforcement doesn't really work," he said.
Head teacher Stephen Drew – who appeared on the TV series Educating Essex, external – said the school offered homework support and "the work is set at a level that reflects exactly what they've been taught in the previous week".
Maybe the headmaster neds a maths lesson. His effective pass mark is 93.75%.
My concern would be if the 3 questions are all related because it’s a bit unfair to get a detention if you simply haven’t grasped one bit and there are 3 questions using it
Reality is it’s maths though so anything that isn’t 100% should be a detention if you follow the headmasters argument
Nobody seems to be thinking of poor Sir or Miss. Having to sit through detention as well. Sort of performance-related pay, I suppose.
Surely they just need to "make less profit" as some have said.
"Britain’s biggest retailers have warned that the high street will shed at least 300,000 jobs over the next three years in a blow to the Chancellor’s hopes of reviving local town and city centres.
Retailers including Marks & Spencer, Sainsbury’s and Tesco have fired a warning shot over the future of the industry, saying a “perfect storm” of higher costs and red tape meant they expected one in 10 shop floor workers to leave retail by 2028."
Surely they just need to "make less profit" as some have said.
"Britain’s biggest retailers have warned that the high street will shed at least 300,000 jobs over the next three years in a blow to the Chancellor’s hopes of reviving local town and city centres.
Retailers including Marks & Spencer, Sainsbury’s and Tesco have fired a warning shot over the future of the industry, saying a “perfect storm” of higher costs and red tape meant they expected one in 10 shop floor workers to leave retail by 2028."
Surely they just need to "make less profit" as some have said.
"Britain’s biggest retailers have warned that the high street will shed at least 300,000 jobs over the next three years in a blow to the Chancellor’s hopes of reviving local town and city centres.
Retailers including Marks & Spencer, Sainsbury’s and Tesco have fired a warning shot over the future of the industry, saying a “perfect storm” of higher costs and red tape meant they expected one in 10 shop floor workers to leave retail by 2028."
Surely they just need to "make less profit" as some have said.
"Britain’s biggest retailers have warned that the high street will shed at least 300,000 jobs over the next three years in a blow to the Chancellor’s hopes of reviving local town and city centres.
Retailers including Marks & Spencer, Sainsbury’s and Tesco have fired a warning shot over the future of the industry, saying a “perfect storm” of higher costs and red tape meant they expected one in 10 shop floor workers to leave retail by 2028."
If they shed 300k jobs won't boost productivity, and free up workers to do other things, so Nonny Nonny Nigel can be less frightened of the reduced immigration?
Surely they just need to "make less profit" as some have said.
"Britain’s biggest retailers have warned that the high street will shed at least 300,000 jobs over the next three years in a blow to the Chancellor’s hopes of reviving local town and city centres.
Retailers including Marks & Spencer, Sainsbury’s and Tesco have fired a warning shot over the future of the industry, saying a “perfect storm” of higher costs and red tape meant they expected one in 10 shop floor workers to leave retail by 2028."
If they shed 300k jobs won't boost productivity, and free up workers to do other things, so Nonny Nonny Nigel can be less frightened of the reduced immigration?
;-)
And, as Catherine Mann from the BOE MPC has said today, these private sector job losses will help calm inflation too.
Good on this school, I would have died of embarrassment if I had scored below 90% in a maths test.
A school's policy of giving detentions to top set pupils who score below 90% on maths homework has been described as "overtly cruel" by a parent.
Joseph's son is in Year 7 at Stewards Academy in Harlow, Essex, and scored 13 out of 16 for his maths homework, which is 81%.
"I thought [the detention] was unjustified: I've worked with children and I find trying to foster aptitude through negative reinforcement doesn't really work," he said.
Head teacher Stephen Drew – who appeared on the TV series Educating Essex, external – said the school offered homework support and "the work is set at a level that reflects exactly what they've been taught in the previous week".
Maybe the headmaster neds a maths lesson. His effective pass mark is 93.75%.
My concern would be if the 3 questions are all related because it’s a bit unfair to get a detention if you simply haven’t grasped one bit and there are 3 questions using it
Reality is it’s maths though so anything that isn’t 100% should be a detention if you follow the headmasters argument
Nobody seems to be thinking of poor Sir or Miss. Having to sit through detention as well. Sort of performance-related pay, I suppose.
They should imprison the parent. What chance has the kid got if dad is so thick he can't tell the difference between negative reinforcement and punishment?
Surely they just need to "make less profit" as some have said.
"Britain’s biggest retailers have warned that the high street will shed at least 300,000 jobs over the next three years in a blow to the Chancellor’s hopes of reviving local town and city centres.
Retailers including Marks & Spencer, Sainsbury’s and Tesco have fired a warning shot over the future of the industry, saying a “perfect storm” of higher costs and red tape meant they expected one in 10 shop floor workers to leave retail by 2028."
If they shed 300k jobs won't boost productivity, and free up workers to do other things, so Nonny Nonny Nigel can be less frightened of the reduced immigration?
;-)
Yep, that's 11% labour productivity growth across retail in only 3 years, or 9x faster than our annualised average growth since 2008.
People don't actually like productivity growth when it happens because it usually means lots of disruption to employment. NICs + low immigration is making capital investment look relatively more attractive for large firms.
And "leave retail" doesn't necessarily mean redundancies. Just that they won't be replaced.
Mr Musk will be cutting funding from NIH Research grants across a swathe of universities in Red States, to the tune of capping it at half of the current average. From .. er .. next Monday.
No heating, cooling, offices, buildings, light, ventilation, illness, clerical staff or pensions for you lot. Do your research in a field.
Legal action incoming ...
President Donald Trump's administration has announced it will slash billions of dollars from overheads in grants for biomedical research as a part of broader cost-saving measures, a move some scientists say will stifle scientific advancements.
In a statement on Friday, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) said it would cut grants for "indirect costs" related to research - such as buildings, utilities and equipment.
"The United States should have the best medical research in the world," NIH said in its announcement. "It is accordingly vital to ensure that as many funds as possible go towards direct scientific research costs rather than administrative overhead."
The agency estimated that the cuts - which go into effect on Monday - would save $4bn (£3.2bn).
The NIH said on Friday that it would cap the rates grants pay for indirect research costs at 15 percent, half of the current average rate of 30 percent.
TMay didn't lose an election, but she came damn close against Jeremy Fu**ing Corbyn. Liz Truss didn't lose an election, but her Premiership was a total catastrophe by virtually every other metric.
I'm not one to stick up for the Labour Party, but this only matters if Labour has ever had a leadership election where a woman was the best candidate but was voted down because of her gender.
Anything else is just meaningless tokenism.
The real story today is how this country has trashed Margaret's golden economic legacy in 35 years of lazy centrist quasi-socialism. And then is somehow surprised when it ends up with despairing politics and no growth.
Many of our current problems are the result of the uncritical perpetuation of a number of Thatcher's policy mistakes.
The impoverishment of the regions was a direct result of Mrs T's policies.
Margaret Thatcher's economic policies, while aimed at revitalizing the British economy, resulted in several significant mistakes and negative consequences:
1. Severe recession and unemployment: Thatcher's strict monetarist policies, including high interest rates and taxes, led to an unnecessarily deep recession in 1981. This caused unemployment to rise to 3 million, particularly affecting the manufacturing sector[6].
2. Increased inequality: Thatcherite policies resulted in a dramatic upswing in inequality between the richest and poorest 10%. By 1991, the gap between the richest and poorest had hit a record high, with incomes soaring for the wealthiest and falling for the poorest[1][4].
3. Deindustrialization: Thatcher's policies wiped out 15% of the UK's industrial base in just a few years, leading to the loss of stable jobs in mining, manufacturing, and steel. This disproportionately affected regions like Scotland, which lost 20% of its workforce in Thatcher's first two years[4].
4. Underinvestment in infrastructure and skills: Thatcherism left the UK failing to properly think about long-run investment, especially in infrastructure and workforce skills. Over the past 40 years, Britain's record of investment in infrastructure and R&D has been among the weakest of any major economy[1][5].
5. Financial deregulation: Excessive deregulation of financial services, starting with the Big Bang in 1986, contributed to the 2007 financial crisis[1].
6. Privatization issues: The privatization of utilities did not maintain investment in national infrastructure as expected[5].
7. Weakening of trade unions: Thatcher's policies significantly undermined trade unions, making it harder for workers to strike and limiting their ability to negotiate for better working conditions. This led to a decrease in workers covered by collective agreements from 82% in 1979 to 35% by 1996[4].
8. Housing crisis: The Right to Buy scheme, while providing a short-term financial boost, ultimately dried up the government's supply of social housing, contributing to long-term housing accessibility issues[4].
9. Regional disparities: Thatcher's policies led to the devastation of swathes of the old industrial economy, bringing wide regional disparities that persist to this day[5].
10. Boom and bust cycle: The economic boom of the late 1980s under Thatcher and her chancellor Nigel Lawson was unsustainable, leading to high inflation and the recession of 1991[6].
These policy mistakes had long-lasting effects on the UK economy and society, contributing to increased inequality, regional economic disparities, and underinvestment in crucial areas of the economy.
AI thinks she's to blame for everything. Must be a socialist.
As against which, real per capita income was 43% higher in 1997 than in 1979; rates of home ownership rose strongly; and millions of new jobs were created to replace those in dying (and extremely unhealthy) industries.
Those new jobs often were created in the redeveloped areas. I've already given her credit for actually doing that. But look at the jobs - we replaced heavy industry with warehousing and call centres. You say those industries were dying and unhealthy - and yet they are still very much alive in the countries who didn't trash them for ideological reasons.
We can't go back to heavy manufacturing, but we can do light manufacturing. We have multiple industries we can excel at - creative arts, finance, technological innovation and energy. Combine the two and we should be developing the next waves of tech to harness power from light, wind and waves, building the kit here and exporting.
Instead we're arguing about how green energy is a lie, and installing wind turbines built elsewhere. Our lack of strategic vision is shocking.
You do know that manufacturing is about 25% of UK GDP right?
New Labour were just as bad as Thatcher for manufacturing...
That's precisely the point I'm trying to get across, rather than simply condemning Thatcher, which would in any event be both unfair, and counterproductive.
The problem with her legacy is that successive governments adopted large parts of it wholesale, without recognising the places where she went badly wrong.
Not to mention that politicians have also imitated mythical Thatcher instead of reality Thatcher.
Meanwhile in the USA Donald Trump signs an Executive Order reintroducing single use plastic straws.
I suppose at least trifles like plastic straws stop him stirring the fragile Gaza ceasefire pot. Oh wait...
Can he now sign one on plastic bottle tops.
Perhaps he is constructing a visible-from-space plastic footbridge of single use plastic detritus across the Pacific. On the plus side it would be significantly cheaper than Boris Johnson's invisible footbridge across the Thames.
If only President Trump would do something about plastic in the Pacific Ocean, starting with finding out who is putting it there because it sure as heck isn't British shoppers denied free carrier bags and I doubt it is Californians sipping Mickey D's milkshakes through plastic straws, although at least they have a Pacific coast.
I hadn't realised but it seems archivist is the official responsible for receiving and validating the certified electoral ballots for presidential elections!!
I hadn't realised but it seems archivist is the official responsible for receiving and validating the certified electoral ballots for presidential elections!!
Mr Musk will be cutting funding from NIH Research grants across a swathe of universities in Red States, to the tune of capping it at half of the current average. From .. er .. next Monday.
No heating, cooling, offices, buildings, light, ventilation, illness, clerical staff or pensions for you lot. Do your research in a field.
Legal action incoming ...
President Donald Trump's administration has announced it will slash billions of dollars from overheads in grants for biomedical research as a part of broader cost-saving measures, a move some scientists say will stifle scientific advancements.
In a statement on Friday, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) said it would cut grants for "indirect costs" related to research - such as buildings, utilities and equipment.
"The United States should have the best medical research in the world," NIH said in its announcement. "It is accordingly vital to ensure that as many funds as possible go towards direct scientific research costs rather than administrative overhead."
The agency estimated that the cuts - which go into effect on Monday - would save $4bn (£3.2bn).
The NIH said on Friday that it would cap the rates grants pay for indirect research costs at 15 percent, half of the current average rate of 30 percent.
"As Josh Marshall noted today in Talking Points Memo, it appears a pattern is emerging in which Democratic-led states are suing the administration while officials from Republican-led states, which are even harder hit by Trump’s cuts than their Democratic-led counterparts, are asking Trump directly for help or exceptions."
(Heather Richardson - letters from an american email)
What do posters think the highest polling percentage will be for Reform in 2025? I'm going with 37%.
I'm more interested in the Labour floor. I think that vote contains at least some who won't vote Labour but don't have the balls to say so (look at the approval ratings), but I'll be happier when their figure begins with a one.
Mr Musk will be cutting funding from NIH Research grants across a swathe of universities in Red States, to the tune of capping it at half of the current average. From .. er .. next Monday.
No heating, cooling, offices, buildings, light, ventilation, illness, clerical staff or pensions for you lot. Do your research in a field.
Legal action incoming ...
President Donald Trump's administration has announced it will slash billions of dollars from overheads in grants for biomedical research as a part of broader cost-saving measures, a move some scientists say will stifle scientific advancements.
In a statement on Friday, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) said it would cut grants for "indirect costs" related to research - such as buildings, utilities and equipment.
"The United States should have the best medical research in the world," NIH said in its announcement. "It is accordingly vital to ensure that as many funds as possible go towards direct scientific research costs rather than administrative overhead."
The agency estimated that the cuts - which go into effect on Monday - would save $4bn (£3.2bn).
The NIH said on Friday that it would cap the rates grants pay for indirect research costs at 15 percent, half of the current average rate of 30 percent.
"As Josh Marshall noted today in Talking Points Memo, it appears a pattern is emerging in which Democratic-led states are suing the administration while officials from Republican-led states, which are even harder hit by Trump’s cuts than their Democratic-led counterparts, are asking Trump directly for help or exceptions."
(Heather Richardson - letters from an american email)
I don't think this one will survive legal challenge. But it is causing chaos... so much uncertainty.
To my mind, Trump is making US uninvestable. How can you commit capital when you have no idea what tariffs he is going to bring in (he doesn't know either!)?
In pharma, he is talking about slashing the FDA... that's going to lead to massive delays in getting new treatments approved...
The split in the combined votes - Ref+Con, Lab+ LD+ G - are important but decreasingly represent a 'left/right' split except rhetorically.
Apart from a few shibboleths, there is little left about Labour and they intend to be seen as a party performing traditionally 'right' things on migration.
On migration the Tories are now and have been speaking 'right' though their entire record is ultra 'left'.
Reform speak 'right' on migration, but are otherwise 1950s social democrats (whatever other stuff may be lurking behind them).
For myself I don't think migration numbers are inherently right or left, but I'm using the formula most seem to accept!
Mr Musk will be cutting funding from NIH Research grants across a swathe of universities in Red States, to the tune of capping it at half of the current average. From .. er .. next Monday.
No heating, cooling, offices, buildings, light, ventilation, illness, clerical staff or pensions for you lot. Do your research in a field.
Legal action incoming ...
President Donald Trump's administration has announced it will slash billions of dollars from overheads in grants for biomedical research as a part of broader cost-saving measures, a move some scientists say will stifle scientific advancements.
In a statement on Friday, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) said it would cut grants for "indirect costs" related to research - such as buildings, utilities and equipment.
"The United States should have the best medical research in the world," NIH said in its announcement. "It is accordingly vital to ensure that as many funds as possible go towards direct scientific research costs rather than administrative overhead."
The agency estimated that the cuts - which go into effect on Monday - would save $4bn (£3.2bn).
The NIH said on Friday that it would cap the rates grants pay for indirect research costs at 15 percent, half of the current average rate of 30 percent.
Trump is doing or proposing an enormous number of outrageous and stupid things, but this one might be the dumbest. The overhead is litterally the facilities and services that make it possible to do the research in the first place. By this way of reckoning a school or hospital would also be overhead. It's moronic.
Obviously we should try and capitalise on this American idiocy by poaching talent and funding more research.
What do posters think the highest polling percentage will be for Reform in 2025? I'm going with 37%.
If it happens, it will be the final death of the Conservative Party, which has been the dominant political party for the past two hundred years.
Always possible. Talk to the Christian Democrats in Italy and the Gaullists in France, who used to be similarly dominant.
Best guess is that Reform will stack up an awful lot of votes in certain constituencies. I'm not convinced about having sufficient number of seats to kill the Cons. If both Reform and the Cons identify the Labour Party as the main enemy (as they should) then a pact is the sensible course.
I actually think the Tories are in the most concerning position right now, rather than Labour:
- Labour: they have the benefit of being in office, which means they can do stuff. So whether or not they are effective and bring their ratings up; or useless and fall further is within their control, to some extent. Modest swingback and they win the next election with a much reduced majority or with the support of the Lib Dems.
- Reform: clearly doing very well. Challenge on converting that into a commensurate number of seats, but there is (currently) only one direction of travel.
- Lib Dems: polling surprisingly resilient outside of an election campaign. Reform are unlikely to challenge in many if any of their seats given vastly different target demographics, so likely to retain a similar seat count. Relatively little upside from here unless the Tories/Labour take another leg down and they benefit from it.
- Tories: I think Labour's fall from grace has been too soon in the electoral cycle for them to take advantage. The public hasn't forgiven them for their own failings, and so disillusioned voters are looking elsewhere. Their abject failure on migration means Reform are winning on the right; their move towards being Reform-lite continues to alienate the liberal wing of their support. The risk of being squeezed out of being the "default" opposition is much higher when you only have 121 MPs.
Comments
Heath and Brown plainly lost.
I don't pass any judgement as to whether this is good or bad, just an observation and I'm told that this is fairly common across the Berlin tech sector too, usually Germans only make up around 20-30% of tech roles the rest of the people are on work visas from somewhere else in the world. Compare that to the UK where I'd say in a standard London start up UK workers will make up 60-70% of total tech roles from my experience.
And the public said "we're not too sure, but it's not you!"
Good morning (although it's grey and drizzly here) one and all!
Also German privacy laws are a big reason to not do anything with personal data in Germany unless you really need to. It’s why Azure Germany isn’t 100% Microsoft
2 - I'm a bit concerned about your extensive hand gesturing off the steering wheel. For a couple of specific examples.
In the channel into 15 minute film. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tB-GGaxmjK0
On what I think is a windy day:
https://youtu.be/mIIXTXl-j8k?t=682
3 - Since Scotland is just (finally) bringing in reporting via video footage you could potentially get a Careless or Not Under Proper Control ticket more easily now.
Your own existing footage should be OK as there is a very short delay for a PCN or other letter to be issues - in England and Wales the police have to issue a Request to Ownew within 14 days I think.
I agree and it raises the point
Why support a poor imitation of the real thing when you can vote for the real thing ?
The problem with her legacy is that successive governments adopted large parts of it wholesale, without recognising the places where she went badly wrong.
Some will welcome this, however it may well be be careful what you wish for.
Most of which has now gone East.
https://x.com/Reuters/status/1889249266863857716
Danke Schoen Frau Merkel
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/in-europe-gas-prices-hit-two-year-high/ar-AA1yLAy8?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=05f46652d1794fa6aa23882199f3ae27&ei=12
Liz Truss being a prime example.
Now our rightwingers bleat on here about following the USA.
The pool from which leaders come, presumably the Cabinet/Shadow Cabinet, in Labour, has more women than the Conservative equivalent, at 53% vs 33%. I think this has generally been the case over the last 30 years. And that is reflected in the statistics for councillors and, as you point out, MPs (46% vs about 20%).
So it doesn't seem to be true that women are discriminated against lower down the hierarchy, and that seems very unlikely to be the reason that Labour has not elected a female leader. If there is any discrimination, it's only at the leadership level, at least unless you can make the case that the party deliberately only allows mediocre women to progress up its hierarchy so that they will fail at the final hurdle. And I doubt that - apart from its inherent implausibility, Labour women aren't obviously more mediocre than Labour men.
What it does perhaps show is yet another instance of woke, socialist inconsistency - Labour is obviously desperate to impose quotas and other crap on the rest of us, while failing to implement them for itself, at any rate for the post that really counts.
But that socialists are hypocrites is hardly news.
https://x.com/forsyth_gabby/status/1888699346884927895
https://www.stoketravel.com/stokepedia/the-horrible-history-of-barcelonas-saint-eulalia/
One legacy I definitely wish we would get rid of is this idea that business leaders know what they are talking about. Given the terrible, short-term decisions so many of them have made over so many years, that is absolutely not the case.
For example grotty town centres are a problem over much of the country but they are a problem caused by the internet.
There's also differences between the types of old industrial areas - mining areas being significantly different to textile towns and both being different to industrial cities.
Certainly mining areas in Yorkshire and the midlands are now pretty nicely regenerated and far superior in many respects to what they were either a generation or two ago.
Although those in north-east England seem to have done less well.
That's why Reform is doing well - not that there is a huge bloc of voters who have always voted for similar parties (the *lack* of voters who support a particular anti-immgration party through thick and thin is actually striking), but that lots of voters feel that immigration issues are not being tackled at all. I'm not against a few videos showing that the issue is being addressed, so long as they're balanced by positive videos showing a coherent long-term strategy.
A school's policy of giving detentions to top set pupils who score below 90% on maths homework has been described as "overtly cruel" by a parent.
Joseph's son is in Year 7 at Stewards Academy in Harlow, Essex, and scored 13 out of 16 for his maths homework, which is 81%.
"I thought [the detention] was unjustified: I've worked with children and I find trying to foster aptitude through negative reinforcement doesn't really work," he said.
Head teacher Stephen Drew – who appeared on the TV series Educating Essex, external – said the school offered homework support and "the work is set at a level that reflects exactly what they've been taught in the previous week".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c75zg47gzp3o
Reality is it’s maths though so anything that isn’t 100% should be a detention if you follow the headmasters argument
Not that the male ones were much better.
She passed from next Prime Minister to not being an MP without any intervening period whatsoever.
(With apologies to Michael Foot.)
I suspect Thatcher's ghostly star ascended highest as various Conservative Prime Ministers disappointed exponentially. The same process seems to have started happening with Blair
Surely they just need to "make less profit" as some have said.
"Britain’s biggest retailers have warned that the high street will shed at least 300,000 jobs over the next three years in a blow to the Chancellor’s hopes of reviving local town and city centres.
Retailers including Marks & Spencer, Sainsbury’s and Tesco have fired a warning shot over the future of the industry, saying a “perfect storm” of higher costs and red tape meant they expected one in 10 shop floor workers to leave retail by 2028."
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/at-least-300-000-high-street-jobs-to-go-m-s-and-tesco-warn/ar-AA1yNSNd?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=dd65d8164f0c4904b13361523d5fcf18&ei=11
We've a health minister who believes people can become llamas, wants to get rid of same sex bathrooms and thinks women can have penises. A foreign secretary who thinks men can grow a cervix.
And now we have a financially strapped NHS that is pumping in money into a court case to support a male doctor who believes that he is a woman and that biological sex is a nebulous idea. All so that he can get his kit off in the women's changing room. (Odd that if biological sex is nebulous, it's always the women's changing room he ends up in.)
So the answer to the problem is simple. Whoever is the next leader, just declare them as female and most of the Labour party will fall in line. Then accuse anyone who dares to suggest otherwise of whatever ....phobia they can.
I suppose at least trifles like plastic straws stop him stirring the fragile Gaza ceasefire pot. Oh wait...
If only he was in the position to be able to do something to help !!!!
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/keir-starmer-backs-mirror-campaign-34652330
https://x.com/UKinUSA/status/1889081969910145169
BREAKING: Welsh Head Coach, Warren Gatland is set to quit his position
https://x.com/SkyNews/status/1889268769224011799
;-)
People don't actually like productivity growth when it happens because it usually means lots of disruption to employment. NICs + low immigration is making capital investment look relatively more attractive for large firms.
And "leave retail" doesn't necessarily mean redundancies. Just that they won't be replaced.
No heating, cooling, offices, buildings, light, ventilation, illness, clerical staff or pensions for you lot. Do your research in a field.
Legal action incoming ...
President Donald Trump's administration has announced it will slash billions of dollars from overheads in grants for biomedical research as a part of broader cost-saving measures, a move some scientists say will stifle scientific advancements.
In a statement on Friday, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) said it would cut grants for "indirect costs" related to research - such as buildings, utilities and equipment.
"The United States should have the best medical research in the world," NIH said in its announcement. "It is accordingly vital to ensure that as many funds as possible go towards direct scientific research costs rather than administrative overhead."
The agency estimated that the cuts - which go into effect on Monday - would save $4bn (£3.2bn).
The NIH said on Friday that it would cap the rates grants pay for indirect research costs at 15 percent, half of the current average rate of 30 percent.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c15zypvgxz5o
Reform: 26% (+1 from 2-3 Feb)
Lab: 25% (+1)
Con: 21% (=)
Lib Dem: 14% (=)
Green: 9% (=)
SNP: 3% (=)
https://x.com/yougov/status/1889223282366579187?s=46
As usual, nothing much has fundanentally changed in the left/right shares , underneath it all.
Reform + Tories = 47 %
Labour + LD + Greens = 48%.
I hadn't realised but it seems archivist is the official responsible for receiving and validating the certified electoral ballots for presidential elections!!
So it begins...
But,
"As Josh Marshall noted today in Talking Points Memo, it appears a pattern is emerging in which Democratic-led states are suing the administration while officials from Republican-led states, which are even harder hit by Trump’s cuts than their Democratic-led counterparts, are asking Trump directly for help or exceptions."
(Heather Richardson - letters from an american email)
I said 28% . So I'm still on target for a victory
Always possible. Talk to the Christian Democrats in Italy and the Gaullists in France, who used to be similarly dominant.
Red for Radical Left Lunatic Democrats
Blue for Radical Right Lunatic Republicans
To my mind, Trump is making US uninvestable. How can you commit capital when you have no idea what tariffs he is going to bring in (he doesn't know either!)?
In pharma, he is talking about slashing the FDA... that's going to lead to massive delays in getting new treatments approved...
Apart from a few shibboleths, there is little left about Labour and they intend to be seen as a party performing traditionally 'right' things on migration.
On migration the Tories are now and have been speaking 'right' though their entire record is ultra 'left'.
Reform speak 'right' on migration, but are otherwise 1950s social democrats (whatever other stuff may be lurking behind them).
For myself I don't think migration numbers are inherently right or left, but I'm using the formula most seem to accept!
Obviously we should try and capitalise on this American idiocy by poaching talent and funding more research.
Absent that, I'd put their ceiling a bit lower.
- Labour: they have the benefit of being in office, which means they can do stuff. So whether or not they are effective and bring their ratings up; or useless and fall further is within their control, to some extent. Modest swingback and they win the next election with a much reduced majority or with the support of the Lib Dems.
- Reform: clearly doing very well. Challenge on converting that into a commensurate number of seats, but there is (currently) only one direction of travel.
- Lib Dems: polling surprisingly resilient outside of an election campaign. Reform are unlikely to challenge in many if any of their seats given vastly different target demographics, so likely to retain a similar seat count. Relatively little upside from here unless the Tories/Labour take another leg down and they benefit from it.
- Tories: I think Labour's fall from grace has been too soon in the electoral cycle for them to take advantage. The public hasn't forgiven them for their own failings, and so disillusioned voters are looking elsewhere. Their abject failure on migration means Reform are winning on the right; their move towards being Reform-lite continues to alienate the liberal wing of their support. The risk of being squeezed out of being the "default" opposition is much higher when you only have 121 MPs.
To be fair the Met are pretty shit anyway.