politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Learning from history

Foxy said:

NeilVW said:

kjohnw said:

I’m no expert but from what I have read on here a permanent CU with the EU would mean us having to accept goods tariff free from third party countries who have FTA with EU but we cannot in return get tariff free access to their markets as they have no incentive to offer that to us . It would be lose lose for the UK . If this is Corbyns plan surely it is a non starter?

Yes but this is a special #CorbynsCustomsUnion in which we will have a much greater say. A #CustomsUnicorn, if you prefer.

Except the EU supported it as a way forward, so maybe not a unicorn at all.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Cyclefree said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

In the end one of two things, a deal will pass or an extension will be agreed

An extension is just dragging the process out, it is not a destination. We still need to end up at either no deal, this deal, a different deal or revoke. There are no other options.

Extension is an option. No deal is not

An extension is not an option. It requires the consent of the EU. Why would they give it? What would it achieve?

No Deal is the destination. May is ruling out all alternatives and has not set out any plausible way either to change the WA so as to get the majority needed or persuade enough MPs to change their mind on the existing WA.

Her only plan - as far as I can see - is to run out of time in order that MPs, out of fear, will vote for the WA.

It is such a culpably negligent and harmful way to run our affairs. Really quite disgraceful. Such a shame that we do not have a way of making politicians behaving like this personally responsible for the harm caused, in the way that councillors used to be.

Re your first sentence, to avoid an economic wasteland and an EU border imposed on Ireland by the EU

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TOPPING said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Gallowgate said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Gallowgate said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

YBarddCwsc said:

_Anazina_ said:

Fantastic performance by us today against an almost inconceivably poor French side. I think we’ll win the Grand Slam with plenty of points to spare.

(The nerdish jingoism about ancient conflicts on here is utterly tiresome, but expected)

Actually, the relentless Anglo-centrism of posts like the above is equally tiresome (we are not all the "us" of "Fantastic performance by us", there are many posters who are "them").

Well said.

Oh come on. Why the chip on the shoulder? It's quite clear who they mean by saying "us". It's very common in English to describe ones team as 'us'...

Not everything is a slight against the Welsh, Irish or Scots. Don't be such sore losers.

I am half English half Welsh so I can see both sides of the argument but it is common for the Celts to be quite touchy on this subject

But why?

If I were to say "I still can't believe we beat Manchester City!" doesn't mean I think everyone here is a Newcastle United fan.

You are not seeing that International matches are different

Big G you don’t get to make the rules here. The usage was fine.

I would not be so presumptive and if some are upset I apologise

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Cyclefree said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

In the end one of two things, a deal will pass or an extension will be agreed

An extension is just dragging the process out, it is not a destination. We still need to end up at either no deal, this deal, a different deal or revoke. There are no other options.

Extension is an option. No deal is not

An extension is not an option. It requires the consent of the EU. Why would they give it? What would it achieve?

No Deal is the destination. May is ruling out all alternatives and has not set out any plausible way either to change the WA so as to get the majority needed or persuade enough MPs to change their mind on the existing WA.

Her only plan - as far as I can see - is to run out of time in order that MPs, out of fear, will vote for the WA.

It is such a culpably negligent and harmful way to run our affairs. Really quite disgraceful. Such a shame that we do not have a way of making politicians behaving like this personally responsible for the harm caused, in the way that councillors used to be.

Re your first sentence, to avoid an economic wasteland and an EU border imposed on Ireland by the EU

NeilVW said:

Foxy said:

NeilVW said:

kjohnw said:

I’m no expert but from what I have read on here a permanent CU with the EU would mean us having to accept goods tariff free from third party countries who have FTA with EU but we cannot in return get tariff free access to their markets as they have no incentive to offer that to us . It would be lose lose for the UK . If this is Corbyns plan surely it is a non starter?

Yes but this is a special #CorbynsCustomsUnion in which we will have a much greater say. A #CustomsUnicorn, if you prefer.

Except the EU supported it as a way forward, so maybe not a unicorn at all.

Well the EU want us to be in a permanent customs union, so it’s no surprise they like the sound of that. Doesn’t mean they would entertain his unicorn version.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Told you England would still be batting at the end of day 2.

Recidivist said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Stereotomy said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Except it solves nothing.

To prevent a border in Ireland you need both Customs Union and Single Market membership. This is a classic case of salami slicing. They take the Single Market membership and then point out that to have an open border we must accept Single Market membership as well.

? I don't think you need either, you just need an FTA with Ireland, right?

Well you need an FTA with the EU not Ireland. But that is not currently on offer and what Corbyn suggests will not solve the issue.

Isn't any arrangement that gives regulatory alignment the answer to a hard border. The problem is if your particular fanciful notion of the benefit of Brexit is the ability to set your own regulations. If you want that then a hard border is inevitable regardless. Agreements, technology and even leprechauns can't help you.

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Told you England would still be batting at the end of day 2.

Riiight...

That was a very Wooden attempt at humour.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Told you England would still be batting at the end of day 2.

MarqueeMark said:

Cyclefree said:

Benpointer said:

Cyclefree said:

viewcode said:

Cyclefree said:

OK - talk me through this. Both of you naked, both agreeably engaged. Then he/she whips phone out. From where? Their arse?

From the bedside table.

Cyclefree said:

I mean, is it really that difficult to have sex with someone and not have your phone with you? Or switch it off?

People these days carry their phone with them wherever they go, with the possible exception of the shower. I agree that it is weird but that's what people do.

I feel very old-fashioned. Were it not for work, I wouldn't bother having a phone at all. And I could happily live without a landline as well.

But I am of the generation which grew up with the phone in the cold hall and parents tut-tutting about the cost of it all if one dared use it for more than the bare minimum.

Autres temps, autres moeurs.

What, no lock on the dial? You don't know how lucky you were.

(My brother and I learnt how to 'dial' a number on the locked phone by tapping it out on the handset plunger, one tap for 1, two fo 2 etc. with a short pause between each. Usually a couple of mis-dials before you got the friend's number you were after!)

This is getting into 4 Yorkshiremen territory I know. But I remember Button A and Button B phones and one of my early memories is my father telling me always to have tuppenny pieces in my coat or bag so that I could make calls home from a phone box (remember them?)

When we were in Italy, if we wanted to call England we had to book an international call and wait around the phone at the appointed hour for the operator to connect you. Phone calls seemed like very exciting and rare events. Not the banalities you hear on buses every day.

I REALLY doubt you remember the tuppenny piece, as it was only minted in copper in 1797 and between 1818-20 in silver. They were also quite huge, the 1d minted in the same style was known as the "cartwheel penny".

They would not have fitted in either Button A or Button B.

NeilVW said:

Yes but this is a special #CorbynsCustomsUnion in which we will have a much greater say. A #CustomsUnicorn, if you prefer.

Cyclefree said:

bigjohnowls said:

NeilVW said:

Foxy said:

NeilVW said:

kjohnw said:

I’m no expert but from what I have read on here a permanent CU with the EU would mean us having to accept goods tariff free from third party countries who have FTA with EU but we cannot in return get tariff free access to their markets as they have no incentive to offer that to us . It would be lose lose for the UK . If this is Corbyns plan surely it is a non starter?

Yes but this is a special #CorbynsCustomsUnion in which we will have a much greater say. A #CustomsUnicorn, if you prefer.

Except the EU supported it as a way forward, so maybe not a unicorn at all.

Well the EU want us to be in a permanent customs union, so it’s no surprise they like the sound of that. Doesn’t mean they would entertain his unicorn version.

Methinks you are wrong.

They have welcomed Corbyns version

Which all relates to the Political Declaration about what might be agreed in the future FTA.

None of what Corbyn has said affects the WA or, even if the Political Declaration is changed as he suggests, makes it more likely that the Tories will vote for the WA as is.

And his suggestion that we would have a say over EU trade deals while not being a member is for the birds. We may as well Remain if that is what is wanted. Is there any reason why the EU would agree to that? It amounts to cherry-picking.

A_View_From_Cumbria5 said:

Those who ask why are we leaving are asking exactly the wrong question. The question should be why did we join ?

Richard_Tyndall said:

Cyclefree misses the most obvious consequence of Acheson's comments. Those in Britain who thought that losing an Empire was a thing to be regretted were then arrogant enough to think that joining the EEC would provide us with a ready made replacement to rule over. Such was the thinking inside the political classes and the civil service for many years both before and after 1973. It is also the arrogance that has pervaded the Europhile elements of British society for all of our membership - the idea that if only we played a greater role the then EU would be bound to transform into something we could be happy with, something we had remade in our own image.

Even now this is a common delusion repeated on here regularly by Remainers.

And yet the EU was never, ever going to be remoulded in the way we wanted and nor should it. For this reason, amongst many others, we are much better off being out of it for both our sakes and those of the rest of the EU.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Cyclefree said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Cyclefree said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Cyclefree said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Cyclefree said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Cyclefree said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Chris said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Chris said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Chris said:

Apparently upto 60 labour mps are coming onside and when the choice is Norway or no brexit many conservatives will vote the deal through otherwise a mutually agreed extension of some kind will be agreed

And where do you get those 60 MPs from? That only leaves another 56 Tories to go. Who might they be?

I am not getting at you Big G. But I think there is a lot of hope being expressed - which seems to me to have no basis in reality.

May's deal may be better than No Deal. But it is a rubbish deal really for our economy. The idea that as a country we should make such a momentous decision on the basis of a poor deal negotiated by a PM unable to take her party with her other than, possibly, at the last minute out of panic and fear is really quite appalling.

The Tories should be thoroughly ashamed of the way they are behaving. No amount of pointing fingers at Corbyn can excuse the way they are behaving.

You can blame the conservatives but in reality it is the 75% mps who never accepted the result and have been determined to stop brexit that have an equal responsibility

I am confident we will either agree a deal or an extension to prevent mutual economic armageddon and the incendiary of the EU themselves erecting a hard border in Ireland on 30th March

And I have to be optimistic, anything else is unacceptable

I prefer to be realistic. I see little basis for optimism, I'm afraid.

The Tories embarked on this. They have made a mess of it. They will take the consequences of their handling of it. They should have thought things through first. It's not as if there have not been plenty of lessons in our past, even in our recent past, from which they could have learnt something. Which is where I came in.

Anyway, must be off to do some work.

Enjoy the rest of the evening.

Recidivist said:

ralphmalph said:

Recidivist said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Stereotomy said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Except it solves nothing.

To prevent a border in Ireland you need both Customs Union and Single Market membership. This is a classic case of salami slicing. They take the Single Market membership and then point out that to have an open border we must accept Single Market membership as well.

? I don't think you need either, you just need an FTA with Ireland, right?

Well you need an FTA with the EU not Ireland. But that is not currently on offer and what Corbyn suggests will not solve the issue.

Isn't any arrangement that gives regulatory alignment the answer to a hard border. The problem is if your particular fanciful notion of the benefit of Brexit is the ability to set your own regulations. If you want that then a hard border is inevitable regardless. Agreements, technology and even leprechauns can't help you.

Depends on how you define a hard border. If your definition of a hard border is border posts and queues or if you definition of a hard border is no infrastructure at the border but having to fill in a customs declaration form.
This has never been defined in the debate so the debate keeps going round in circles.

Sort of, but you need at least some infrastructure. A purely virtual border isn't going to stop some of the things we'd want to stop.

Cyclefree said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Cyclefree said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Cyclefree said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Cyclefree said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Cyclefree said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Cyclefree said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Chris said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Chris said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Chris said:

Apparently upto 60 labour mps are coming onside and when the choice is Norway or no brexit many conservatives will vote the deal through otherwise a mutually agreed extension of some kind will be agreed

And where do you get those 60 MPs from? That only leaves another 56 Tories to go. Who might they be?

I am not getting at you Big G. But I think there is a lot of hope being expressed - which seems to me to have no basis in reality.

May's deal may be better than No Deal. But it is a rubbish deal really for our economy. The idea that as a country we should make such a momentous decision on the basis of a poor deal negotiated by a PM unable to take her party with her other than, possibly, at the last minute out of panic and fear is really quite appalling.

The Tories should be thoroughly ashamed of the way they are behaving. No amount of pointing fingers at Corbyn can excuse the way they are behaving.

You can blame the conservatives but in reality it is the 75% mps who never accepted the result and have been determined to stop brexit that have an equal responsibility

I am confident we will either agree a deal or an extension to prevent mutual economic armageddon and the incendiary of the EU themselves erecting a hard border in Ireland on 30th March

And I have to be optimistic, anything else is unacceptable

I prefer to be realistic. I see little basis for optimism, I'm afraid.

The Tories embarked on this. They have made a mess of it. They will take the consequences of their handling of it. They should have thought things through first. It's not as if there have not been plenty of lessons in our past, even in our recent past, from which they could have learnt something. Which is where I came in.

Anyway, must be off to do some work.

Enjoy the rest of the evening.

And you

justin124 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Benpointer said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Benpointer said:

Superb article @Cyclefree. Thanks

I for one had never come across Nico Henderson's analysis - what remarkable insight it shows.

I fear we may be about to enter a period of significant decline as we cut ourselves adrift from Europe once again.

I do wonder how the other 94% of the planet not tied to the EU manage to survive and thrive given that apparently it is impossible to exist as a civilisation without EU membership.

Well 80% of that 94% exist and 'thrive' at much lower standards of living than we have enjoyed, and most of the remainder benefit from their own large markets or huge supplies of natural resources.

Since we don't have either of the latter, a drift to relative poverty is what we will face.

I recommend you read Nicholas Henderson's note.

https://c59574e9047e61130f13-3f71d0fe2b653c4f00f32175760e96e7.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/D98F7773620F4D7EA92A697C0808A5FC.pdf

Nonsense. Socialism caused Britain's decline and it only ended not when we joined the EEC but rather when Thatcher fixed our economy (the Winter of Discontent was after we joined).

Globally comparable English=speaking developed nations perform at least as well as we do.

In what way did Thatcher 'fix' our economy? She ruined the lives of many and brought misery to millions with her sadomasochistic monetarism in her first term - policies later abandoned by Lawson. Unemployment soared under her stewardship and - despite the bonus of North Sea Oil - the Balance of Payments deteriorated. Inflation, at the time of her departure, was unchanged from the level inherited from Callaghan 11.5 years earlier - indeed inflation was higher for most of her last full year in office than in Callaghan's final year. Despite the Privatisation receipts , by 1990 the Public Finances were again in a sorry state.

Fenman said:

justin124 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Benpointer said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Benpointer said:

Superb article @Cyclefree. Thanks

I for one had never come across Nico Henderson's analysis - what remarkable insight it shows.

I fear we may be about to enter a period of significant decline as we cut ourselves adrift from Europe once again.

I do wonder how the other 94% of the planet not tied to the EU manage to survive and thrive given that apparently it is impossible to exist as a civilisation without EU membership.

Well 80% of that 94% exist and 'thrive' at much lower standards of living than we have enjoyed, and most of the remainder benefit from their own large markets or huge supplies of natural resources.

Since we don't have either of the latter, a drift to relative poverty is what we will face.

I recommend you read Nicholas Henderson's note.

https://c59574e9047e61130f13-3f71d0fe2b653c4f00f32175760e96e7.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/D98F7773620F4D7EA92A697C0808A5FC.pdf

Nonsense. Socialism caused Britain's decline and it only ended not when we joined the EEC but rather when Thatcher fixed our economy (the Winter of Discontent was after we joined).

Globally comparable English=speaking developed nations perform at least as well as we do.

In what way did Thatcher 'fix' our economy? She ruined the lives of many and brought misery to millions with her sadomasochistic monetarism in her first term - policies later abandoned by Lawson. Unemployment soared under her stewardship and - despite the bonus of North Sea Oil - the Balance of Payments deteriorated. Inflation, at the time of her departure, was unchanged from the level inherited from Callaghan 11.5 years earlier - indeed inflation was higher for most of her last full year in office than in Callaghan's final year. Despite the Privatisation receipts , by 1990 the Public Finances were again in a sorry state.

Of course she fixed our economy. So the rich could get richer and the poor could get poorer.

ralphmalph said:

SouthamObserver said:

justin124 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Benpointer said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Benpointer said:

Superb article @Cyclefree. Thanks

urope once again.

I do wonder how the other 94% of the planet not tied to the EU manage to survive and thrive given that apparently it is impossible to exist as a civilisation without EU membership.

Well 80% of that 94% exist and 'thrive' at much lower standards of living than we have enjoyed, and most of the remainder benefit from their own large markets or huge supplies of natural resources.

Since we don't have either of the latter, a drift to relative poverty is what we will face.

I recommend you read Nicholas Henderson's note.

https://c59574e9047e61130f13-3f71d0fe2b653c4f00f32175760e96e7.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/D98F7773620F4D7EA92A697C0808A5FC.pdf

Nonsense. Socialism caused Britain's decline and it only ended not when we joined the EEC but rather when Thatcher fixed our economy (the Winter of Discontent was after we joined).

Globally comparable English=speaking developed nations perform at least as well as we do.

In what way 11.5 years earlier - indeed inflation was higher for most of her last full year in office than in Callaghan's final year. Despite the Privatisation receipts , by 1990 the Public Finances were again in a sorry state.

I have to be honest and say I don’t think I could have done what I have done without Thatcherism. Like it or not, she did send entrepreneurialism free. But I lived in London and went to university (for free). I was her target audience. That does not excuse her utter failure to manage deindustrialisation. Her neglect caused devastated countless communities and they still have not recovered. We should bear that in mind with Brexit. Once torn asunder communities are very difficult to put together again.

In debates like this I would advise that people read the released cabinet documents of the period for when the Labour Govt called in the IMF. The discussions in cabinet were absolutely clear that calling in the IMF would result in the hollowing out of UK industry, shipbuilding, car manufacturing, etc would all shrink dramatically. It is a credit to the Labour Party that they have dishonestly put the blame on Thatcher.

SouthamObserver said:

justin124 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Benpointer said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Benpointer said:

Superb article @Cyclefree. Thanks

I for one had never come across Nico Henderson's analysis - what remarkable insight it shows.

I fear we may be about to enter a period of significant decline as we cut ourselves adrift from Europe once again.

I do wonder how the other 94% of the planet not tied to the EU manage to survive and thrive given that apparently it is impossible to exist as a civilisation without EU membership.

Well 80% of that 94% exist and 'thrive' at much lower standards of living than we have enjoyed, and most of the remainder benefit from their own large markets or huge supplies of natural resources.

Since we don't have either of the latter, a drift to relative poverty is what we will face.

I recommend you read Nicholas Henderson's note.

https://c59574e9047e61130f13-3f71d0fe2b653c4f00f32175760e96e7.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/D98F7773620F4D7EA92A697C0808A5FC.pdf

Nonsense. Socialism caused Britain's decline and it only ended not when we joined the EEC but rather when Thatcher fixed our economy (the Winter of Discontent was after we joined).

Globally comparable English=speaking developed nations perform at least as well as we do.

In what way did Thatcher 'fix' our economy? She ruined the lives of many and brought misery to millions with her sadomasochistic monetarism in her first term - policies later abandoned by Lawson. Unemployment soared under her stewardship and - despite the bonus of North Sea Oil - the Balance of Payments deteriorated. Inflation, at the time of her departure, was unchanged from the level inherited from Callaghan 11.5 years earlier - indeed inflation was higher for most of her last full year in office than in Callaghan's final year. Despite the Privatisation receipts , by 1990 the Public Finances were again in a sorry state.

I have to be honest and say I don’t think I could have done what I have done without Thatcherism. Like it or not, she did send entrepreneurialism free. But I lived in London and went to university (for free). I was her target audience. That does not excuse her utter failure to manage deindustrialisation. Her neglect caused devastated countless communities and they still have not recovered. We should bear that in mind with Brexit. Once torn asunder communities are very difficult to put together again.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Benpointer said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Benpointer said:

Superb article @Cyclefree. Thanks

I for one had never come across Nico Henderson's analysis - what remarkable insight it shows.

I fear we may be about to enter a period of significant decline as we cut ourselves adrift from Europe once again.

I do wonder how the other 94% of the planet not tied to the EU manage to survive and thrive given that apparently it is impossible to exist as a civilisation without EU membership.

Well 80% of that 94% exist and 'thrive' at much lower standards of living than we have enjoyed, and most of the remainder benefit from their own large markets or huge supplies of natural resources.

Since we don't have either of the latter, a drift to relative poverty is what we will face.

I recommend you read Nicholas Henderson's note.

https://c59574e9047e61130f13-3f71d0fe2b653c4f00f32175760e96e7.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/D98F7773620F4D7EA92A697C0808A5FC.pdf

I have read it and to be honest it is pretty much meaningless in this day and age when so much has changed in the intervening period.

There is nothing inevitable as he implies about these trends and about our place in the world. He could never have predicted the fantastic changes wrought by Thatcher in the 80s nor that we would be in a position where our GDP per capita was now higher than that of France.

His note is a reflection of his own despondency about the future - a future that actually did not come to pass.

Recidivist said:

It was the Blair/Brown years where the UK raced ahead of France. Who knows why - not me for sure. I suspect nobody on this forum can explain it.

SandyRentool said:

williamglenn said:

What fresh weirdness is this?

https://twitter.com/michaellcrick/status/1094699213525581824?s=21

Post watershed. Tezzie must be telling Jezza to feck right off.

justin124 said:

Foxy said:

Fenman said:

justin124 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Benpointer said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Benpointer said:

Superb article @Cyclefree. Thanks

I do wonder how the other 94% of the planet not tied to the EU manage to survive and thrive given that apparently it is impossible to exist as a civilisation without EU membership.

Well 80% of that 94% exist and 'thrive' at much lower standards of living than we have enjoyed, and most of the remainder benefit from their own large markets or huge supplies of natural resources.

Since we don't have either of the latter, a drift to relative poverty is what we will face.

I recommend you read Nicholas Henderson's note.

https://c59574e9047e61130f13-3f71d0fe2b653c4f00f32175760e96e7.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/D98F7773620F4D7EA92A697C0808A5FC.pdf

Nonsense. Socialism caused Britain's decline and it only ended not when we joined the EEC but rather when Thatcher fixed our economy (the Winter of Discontent was after we joined).

Globally comparable English=speaking developed nations perform at least as well as we do.

In what way did Thatcher 'fix' our economy? She ruined the lives of many and brought misery to millions with her sadomasochistic monetarism in her first term - policies later abandoned by Lawson. Unemployment soared under her stewardship and - despite the bonus of North Sea Oil - the Balance of Payments deteriorated. Inflation, at the time of her departure, was unchanged from the level inherited from Callaghan 11.5 years earlier - indeed inflation was higher for most of her last full year in office than in Callaghan's final year. Despite the Privatisation receipts , by 1990 the Public Finances were again in a sorry state.

Of course she fixed our economy. So the rich could get richer and the poor could get poorer.

I think Thatcher's influence was more than that, and indeed seperates into phases. 79-82 were pretty grim most places, with high unemployment, high interest rates and inflation. The mid Eighties were Yuppie heaven in London and some other parts. Post 87, things started to go sour again with division over polltax, Europe and industrial issues like Westland. It was a long decade, and clearly a transforming one in some areas of the economy, some transformation for the good, and some for the bad.

I remember one Eighties Joke.

Q: How do you start a small business in Britain?

A: Start with a large nationalised one, and vote in Mrs Thatcher!

I thought the answer was ' Start with a big one!'.
By the way Westland was Jan/Feb 1986.

justin124 said:

SouthamObserver said:

justin124 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Benpointer said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Benpointer said:

Superb article @Cyclefree. Thanks

I for one had never come across Nico Henderson's analysis - what remarkable insight it shows.

I fear we may be about to enter a period of significant decline as we cut ourselves adrift from Europe once again.

I do wonder how the other 94% of the planet not tied to the EU manage to survive and thrive given that apparently it is impossible to exist as a civilisation without EU membership.

https://c59574e9047e61130f13-3f71d0fe2b653c4f00f32175760e96e7.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/D98F7773620F4D7EA92A697C0808A5FC.pdf

Nonsense. Socialism caused Britain's decline and it only ended not when we joined the EEC but rather when Thatcher fixed our economy (the Winter of Discontent was after we joined).

Globally comparable English=speaking developed nations perform at least as well as we do.

In what way did Thatcher 'fix' our economy? She ruined the lives of many and brought misery to millions with her sadomasochistic monetarism in her first term - policies later abandoned by Lawson. Unemployment soared under her stewardship and - despite the bonus of North Sea Oil - the Balance of Payments deteriorated. Inflation, at the time of her departure, was unchanged from the level inherited from Callaghan 11.5 years earlier - indeed inflation was higher for most of her last full year in office than in Callaghan's final year. Despite the Privatisation receipts , by 1990 the Public Finances were again in a sorry state.

I have to be honest and say I don’t think I could have done what I have done without Thatcherism. Like it or not, she did send entrepreneurialism free. But I lived in London and went to university (for free). I was her target audience. That does not excuse her utter failure to manage deindustrialisation. Her neglect caused devastated countless communities and they still have not recovered. We should bear that in mind with Brexit. Once torn asunder communities are very difficult to put together again.

You and others may have flourished individually during those years , but despite the massive advantages she enjoyed in terms of North Sea Oil and receipts from Privatisation it is not clear that the key Macroeconomic indicators improved during her long years in office . Unemployment? Economic Growth? Balance of Payments? Inflation?

Foxy said:

Fenman said:

justin124 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Benpointer said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Benpointer said:

Superb article @Cyclefree. Thanks

I do wonder how the other 94% of the planet not tied to the EU manage to survive and thrive given that apparently it is impossible to exist as a civilisation without EU membership.

Well 80% of that 94% exist and 'thrive' at much lower standards of living than we have enjoyed, and most of the remainder benefit from their own large markets or huge supplies of natural resources.

Since we don't have either of the latter, a drift to relative poverty is what we will face.

I recommend you read Nicholas Henderson's note.

https://c59574e9047e61130f13-3f71d0fe2b653c4f00f32175760e96e7.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/D98F7773620F4D7EA92A697C0808A5FC.pdf

Nonsense. Socialism caused Britain's decline and it only ended not when we joined the EEC but rather when Thatcher fixed our economy (the Winter of Discontent was after we joined).

Globally comparable English=speaking developed nations perform at least as well as we do.

In what way did Thatcher 'fix' our economy? She ruined the lives of many and brought misery to millions with her sadomasochistic monetarism in her first term - policies later abandoned by Lawson. Unemployment soared under her stewardship and - despite the bonus of North Sea Oil - the Balance of Payments deteriorated. Inflation, at the time of her departure, was unchanged from the level inherited from Callaghan 11.5 years earlier - indeed inflation was higher for most of her last full year in office than in Callaghan's final year. Despite the Privatisation receipts , by 1990 the Public Finances were again in a sorry state.

Of course she fixed our economy. So the rich could get richer and the poor could get poorer.

I think Thatcher's influence was more than that, and indeed seperates into phases. 79-82 were pretty grim most places, with high unemployment, high interest rates and inflation. The mid Eighties were Yuppie heaven in London and some other parts. Post 87, things started to go sour again with division over polltax, Europe and industrial issues like Westland. It was a long decade, and clearly a transforming one in some areas of the economy, some transformation for the good, and some for the bad.

I remember one Eighties Joke.

Q: How do you start a small business in Britain?

A: Start with a large nationalised one, and vote in Mrs Thatcher!

TheAncientMariner said:

I think the worst thing about the Thatcher years was the great increase in personal debt.

SouthamObserver said:

another_richard said:

SouthamObserver said:

justin124 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Benpointer said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Benpointer said:

Superb article @Cyclefree. Thanks

I for one had never come across Nico Henderson's analysis - what remarkable insight it shows.

I fear we may be about to enter a period of significant decline as we cut ourselves adrift from Europe once again.

I do wonder how the other 94% of the planet not tied to the EU manage to survive and thrive given that apparently it is impossible to exist as a civilisation without EU membership.

Well 80% of that 94% exist and 'thrive' at much lower standards of living than we have enjoyed, and most of the remainder benefit from their own large markets or huge supplies of natural resources.

Since we don't have either of the latter, a drift to relative poverty is what we will face.

I recommend you read Nicholas Henderson's note.

https://c59574e9047e61130f13-3f71d0fe2b653c4f00f32175760e96e7.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/D98F7773620F4D7EA92A697C0808A5FC.pdf

Nonsense. Socialism caused Britain's decline and it only ended not when we joined the EEC but rather when Thatcher fixed our economy (the Winter of Discontent was after we joined).

Globally comparable English=speaking developed nations perform at least as well as we do.

In what way did Despite the Privatisation receipts , by 1990 the Public Finances were again in a sorry state.

I have to be honest and say I don’t think I could have done what I have done without Thatcherism. Like it or not, she did send entrepreneurialism free. But I lived in London and went to university (for free). I was her target audience. That does not excuse her utter failure to manage deindustrialisation. Her neglect caused devastated countless communities and they still have not recovered. We should bear that in mind with Brexit. Once torn asunder communities are very difficult to put together again.

UK manufacturing output was higher when Thatcher left office than when she became PM:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/economicoutputandproductivity/output/timeseries/k22a/diop

If you want to talk about deindustrialisation then the Blair / Brown Labour government would be a better place to begin.

Output is different. I am talking about the communities that had to live through the closures of major vehicles of industrial production. That happened in the 80s and early 90s, probably inevitably. But there was no plan to rebuild or reskill. And we continue to live with the consequences today.

another_richard said:

SouthamObserver said:

another_richard said:

SouthamObserver said:

justin124 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Benpointer said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Benpointer said:

Superb article @Cyclefree. Thanks

I for one had never come across Nico Henderson's analysis - what remarkable insight it shows.

I fear we may be about to enter a period of significant decline as we cut ourselves adrift from Europe once again.

I do wonder how the other 94% of the planet not tied to the EU manage to survive and thrive given that apparently it is impossible to exist as a civilisation without EU membership.

Well 80% of that 94% exist and 'thrive' at much lower standards of living than we have enjoyed, and most of the remainder benefit from their own large markets or huge supplies of natural resources.

Since we don't have either of the latter, a drift to relative poverty is what we will face.

I recommend you read Nicholas Henderson's note.

https://c59574e9047e61130f13-3f71d0fe2b653c4f00f32175760e96e7.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/D98F7773620F4D7EA92A697C0808A5FC.pdf

Nonsense. Socialism caused Britain's decline and it only ended not when we joined the EEC but rather when Thatcher fixed our economy (the Winter of Discontent was after we joined).

Globally comparable English=speaking developed nations perform at least as well as we do.

In what way did Despite the Privatisation receipts , by 1990 the Public Finances were again in a sorry state.

I have to be honest andwith Brexit. Once torn asunder communities are very difficult to put together again.

UK manufacturing output was higher when Thatcher left office than when she became PM:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/economicoutputandproductivity/output/timeseries/k22a/diop

If you want to talk about deindustrialisation then the Blair / Brown Labour government would be a better place to begin.

Output is different. I am talking about the communities that had to live through the closures of major vehicles of industrial production. That happened in the 80s and early 90s, probably inevitably. But there was no plan to rebuild or reskill. And we continue to live with the consequences today.

So what was the Nissan car plant in Sunderland but rebuilding and reskilling ?

Richard_Tyndall said:

Benpointer said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Benpointer said:

Superb article @Cyclefree. Thanks

I for one had never come across Nico Henderson's analysis - what remarkable insight it shows.

I fear we may be about to enter a period of significant decline as we cut ourselves adrift from Europe once again.

I do wonder how the other 94% of the planet not tied to the EU manage to survive and thrive given that apparently it is impossible to exist as a civilisation without EU membership.

Well 80% of that 94% exist and 'thrive' at much lower standards of living than we have enjoyed, and most of the remainder benefit from their own large markets or huge supplies of natural resources.

Since we don't have either of the latter, a drift to relative poverty is what we will face.

I recommend you read Nicholas Henderson's note.

https://c59574e9047e61130f13-3f71d0fe2b653c4f00f32175760e96e7.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/D98F7773620F4D7EA92A697C0808A5FC.pdf

I have read it and to be honest it is pretty much meaningless in this day and age when so much has changed in the intervening period.

There is nothing inevitable as he implies about these trends and about our place in the world. He could never have predicted the fantastic changes wrought by Thatcher in the 80s nor that we would be in a position where our GDP per capita was now higher than that of France.

His note is a reflection of his own despondency about the future - a future that actually did not come to pass.

Benpointer said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Benpointer said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Benpointer said:

Superb article @Cyclefree. Thanks

I for one had never come across Nico Henderson's analysis - what remarkable insight it shows.

I fear we may be about to enter a period of significant decline as we cut ourselves adrift from Europe once again.

I do wonder how the other 94% of the planet not tied to the EU manage to survive and thrive given that apparently it is impossible to exist as a civilisation without EU membership.

Well 80% of that 94% exist and 'thrive' at much lower standards of living than we have enjoyed, and most of the remainder benefit from their own large markets or huge supplies of natural resources.

Since we don't have either of the latter, a drift to relative poverty is what we will face.

I recommend you read Nicholas Henderson's note.

https://c59574e9047e61130f13-3f71d0fe2b653c4f00f32175760e96e7.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/D98F7773620F4D7EA92A697C0808A5FC.pdf

I have read it and to be honest it is pretty much meaningless in this day and age when so much has changed in the intervening period.

There is nothing inevitable as he implies about these trends and about our place in the world. He could never have predicted the fantastic changes wrought by Thatcher in the 80s nor that we would be in a position where our GDP per capita was now higher than that of France.

His note is a reflection of his own despondency about the future - a future that actually did not come to pass.

Just a coincidence then that the UK's fortunes, which had fared so miserably in the 30 years after the war, improved so much during the 40 years we were a member of the European market?

Richard_Tyndall said:

Benpointer said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Benpointer said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Benpointer said:

Superb article @Cyclefree. Thanks

I for one had never come across Nico Henderson's analysis - what remarkable insight it shows.

I fear we may be about to enter a period of significant decline as we cut ourselves adrift from Europe once again.

I do wonder how the other 94% of the planet not tied to the EU manage to survive and thrive given that apparently it is impossible to exist as a civilisation without EU membership.

Well 80% of that 94% exist and 'thrive' at much lower standards of living than we have enjoyed, and most of the remainder benefit from their own large markets or huge supplies of natural resources.

Since we don't have either of the latter, a drift to relative poverty is what we will face.

I recommend you read Nicholas Henderson's note.

https://c59574e9047e61130f13-3f71d0fe2b653c4f00f32175760e96e7.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/D98F7773620F4D7EA92A697C0808A5FC.pdf

I have read it and to be honest it is pretty much meaningless in this day and age when so much has changed in the intervening period.

There is nothing inevitable as he implies about these trends and about our place in the world. He could never have predicted the fantastic changes wrought by Thatcher in the 80s nor that we would be in a position where our GDP per capita was now higher than that of France.

His note is a reflection of his own despondency about the future - a future that actually did not come to pass.

Just a coincidence then that the UK's fortunes, which had fared so miserably in the 30 years after the war, improved so much during the 40 years we were a member of the European market?

They didn't. They didn't start to change until 8 years after we joined the EU - which surprise surprise coincided with the arrival of Thatcher.

Bar one quarter in the mid 1980s the last time we had a balance of payments surplus with the countries of the EU/EEC was the year before we joined.

_Anazina_ said:

Streeter said:

Recidivist said:

ralphmalph said:

Recidivist said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Stereotomy said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Except it solves nothing.

To prevent a border in Ireland you need both Customs Union and Single Market membership. This is a classic case of salami slicing. They take the Single Market membership and then point out that to have an open border we must accept Single Market membership as well.

? I don't think you need either, you just need an FTA with Ireland, right?

Well you need an FTA with the EU not Ireland. But that is not currently on offer and what Corbyn suggests will not solve the issue.

Isn't any arrangement that gives regulatory alignment the answer to a hard border. The problem is if your particular fanciful notion of the benefit of Brexit is the ability to set your own regulations. If you want that then a hard border is inevitable regardless. Agreements, technology and even leprechauns can't help you.

Depends on how you define a hard border. If your definition of a hard border is border posts and queues or if you definition of a hard border is no infrastructure at the border but having to fill in a customs declaration form.
This has never been defined in the debate so the debate keeps going round in circles.

Sort of, but you need at least some infrastructure. A purely virtual border isn't going to stop some of the things we'd want to stop.

How do you catch the criminals who choose not to fill in the forms without checks at the border?

I’m not sure of the correct punchline to that one either.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Benpointer said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Benpointer said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Benpointer said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Benpointer said:

Superb article @Cyclefree. Thanks

I for one had never come across Nico Henderson's analysis - what remarkable insight it shows.

I fear we may be about to enter a period of significant decline as we cut ourselves adrift from Europe once again.

I do wonder how the other 94% of the planet not tied to the EU manage to survive and thrive given that apparently it is impossible to exist as a civilisation without EU membership.

Well 80% of that 94% exist and 'thrive' at much lower standards of living than we have enjoyed, and most of the remainder benefit from their own large markets or huge supplies of natural resources.

Since we don't have either of the latter, a drift to relative poverty is what we will face.

I recommend you read Nicholas Henderson's note.

https://c59574e9047e61130f13-3f71d0fe2b653c4f00f32175760e96e7.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/D98F7773620F4D7EA92A697C0808A5FC.pdf

I have read it and to be honest it is pretty much meaningless in this day and age when so much has changed in the intervening period.

There is nothing inevitable as he implies about these trends and about our place in the world. He could never have predicted the fantastic changes wrought by Thatcher in the 80s nor that we would be in a position where our GDP per capita was now higher than that of France.

His note is a reflection of his own despondency about the future - a future that actually did not come to pass.

Just a coincidence then that the UK's fortunes, which had fared so miserably in the 30 years after the war, improved so much during the 40 years we were a member of the European market?

They didn't. They didn't start to change until 8 years after we joined the EU - which surprise surprise coincided with the arrival of Thatcher.

Bar one quarter in the mid 1980s the last time we had a balance of payments surplus with the countries of the EU/EEC was the year before we joined.

Sorry, to equate 'the UK's fortunes' with 'a balance of payments surplus with the EU/EEC' just shows how narrow your thinking is.

I don't it is just one example amongst many. And since trade and exporting is the one you Remoaners spend all day, every day harping on about I am surprised you are so blasé about it.

Streeter said:

_Anazina_ said:

Streeter said:

Recidivist said:

ralphmalph said:

Recidivist said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Stereotomy said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Except it solves nothing.

To prevent a border in Ireland you need both Customs Union and Single Market membership. This is a classic case of salami slicing. They take the Single Market membership and then point out that to have an open border we must accept Single Market membership as well.

? I don't think you need either, you just need an FTA with Ireland, right?

Well you need an FTA with the EU not Ireland. But that is not currently on offer and what Corbyn suggests will not solve the issue.

Isn't any arrangement that gives regulatory alignment the answer to a hard border. The problem is if your particular fanciful notion of the benefit of Brexit is the ability to set your own regulations. If you want that then a hard border is inevitable regardless. Agreements, technology and even leprechauns can't help you.

Depends on how you define a hard border. If your definition of a hard border is border posts and queues or if you definition of a hard border is no infrastructure at the border but having to fill in a customs declaration form.
This has never been defined in the debate so the debate keeps going round in circles.

Sort of, but you need at least some infrastructure. A purely virtual border isn't going to stop some of the things we'd want to stop.

How do you catch the criminals who choose not to fill in the forms without checks at the border?

I’m not sure of the correct punchline to that one either.

I’m sure @ralphmalph will be along shortly to explain it to us simpletons.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Benpointer said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Benpointer said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Benpointer said:

Superb article @Cyclefree. Thanks

I for one had never come across Nico Henderson's analysis - what remarkable insight it shows.

I fear we may be about to enter a period of significant decline as we cut ourselves adrift from Europe once again.

I do wonder how the other 94% of the planet not tied to the EU manage to survive and thrive given that apparently it is impossible to exist as a civilisation without EU membership.

Well 80% of that 94% exist and 'thrive' at much lower standards of living than we have enjoyed, and most of the remainder benefit from their own large markets or huge supplies of natural resources.

Since we don't have either of the latter, a drift to relative poverty is what we will face.

I recommend you read Nicholas Henderson's note.

https://c59574e9047e61130f13-3f71d0fe2b653c4f00f32175760e96e7.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/D98F7773620F4D7EA92A697C0808A5FC.pdf

I have read it and to be honest it is pretty much meaningless in this day and age when so much has changed in the intervening period.

There is nothing inevitable as he implies about these trends and about our place in the world. He could never have predicted the fantastic changes wrought by Thatcher in the 80s nor that we would be in a position where our GDP per capita was now higher than that of France.

His note is a reflection of his own despondency about the future - a future that actually did not come to pass.

Just a coincidence then that the UK's fortunes, which had fared so miserably in the 30 years after the war, improved so much during the 40 years we were a member of the European market?

They didn't. They didn't start to change until 8 years after we joined the EU - which surprise surprise coincided with the arrival of Thatcher.

Bar one quarter in the mid 1980s the last time we had a balance of payments surplus with the countries of the EU/EEC was the year before we joined.

Freggles said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

I do wonder how the other 94% of the planet not tied to the EU manage to survive and thrive given that apparently it is impossible to exist as a civilisation without EU membership.

So sick of this argument. 0% the rest of the world were previously EU members so it's not comparable.
It's like saying jumping off a moving high speed train is perfectly safe because most of the world is not on a train.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Freggles said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

I do wonder how the other 94% of the planet not tied to the EU manage to survive and thrive given that apparently it is impossible to exist as a civilisation without EU membership.

So sick of this argument. 0% the rest of the world were previously EU members so it's not comparable.
It's like saying jumping off a moving high speed train is perfectly safe because most of the world is not on a train.

Except in this case the train is moving very slowly backwards not shooting forwards.
You do need to think about your similes a bit more.

Chris said:

It strikes me that there is a very obvious response that Theresa May could make to Corbyn's proposal. He says he would be willing to support the Withdrawal Agreement provided the government was committed to a particular approach in the negotiations with the EU after Brexit. Why not offer Corbyn a post-Brexit general election, so that the people can decide which approach they prefer?

I suppose the objection to that is the same as the objection to every other reasonable solution - it might break the Tory party. Though she'd have to think of a different excuse for public consumption.

Foxy said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Benpointer said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Benpointer said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Benpointer said:

Superb article @Cyclefree. Thanks

I for one had never come across Nico Henderson's analysis - what remarkable insight it shows.

I fear we may be about to enter a period of significant decline as we cut ourselves adrift from Europe once again.

I do wonder how the other 94% of the planet not tied to the EU manage to survive and thrive given that apparently it is impossible to exist as a civilisation without EU membership.

Well 80% of that 94% exist and 'thrive' at much lower standards of living than we have enjoyed, and most of the remainder benefit from their own large markets or huge supplies of natural resources.

Since we don't have either of the latter, a drift to relative poverty is what we will face.

I recommend you read Nicholas Henderson's note.

https://c59574e9047e61130f13-3f71d0fe2b653c4f00f32175760e96e7.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/D98F7773620F4D7EA92A697C0808A5FC.pdf

I have read it and to be honest it is pretty much meaningless in this day and age when so much has changed in the intervening period.

There is nothing inevitable as he implies about these trends and about our place in the world. He could never have predicted the fantastic changes wrought by Thatcher in the 80s nor that we would be in a position where our GDP per capita was now higher than that of France.

His note is a reflection of his own despondency about the future - a future that actually did not come to pass.

Just a coincidence then that the UK's fortunes, which had fared so miserably in the 30 years after the war, improved so much during the 40 years we were a member of the European market?

They didn't. They didn't start to change until 8 years after we joined the EU - which surprise surprise coincided with the arrival of Thatcher.

Bar one quarter in the mid 1980s the last time we had a balance of payments surplus with the countries of the EU/EEC was the year before we joined.

Surely the effect of North Sea Oil on the value of Sterling was quite a big influence too.

Though I agree that access to better quality* imported European consumer goods was quite a major benefit to British consumers.

Not the Alfa Sud, obviously!

williamglenn said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Freggles said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

I do wonder how the other 94% of the planet not tied to the EU manage to survive and thrive given that apparently it is impossible to exist as a civilisation without EU membership.

So sick of this argument. 0% the rest of the world were previously EU members so it's not comparable.
It's like saying jumping off a moving high speed train is perfectly safe because most of the world is not on a train.

Except in this case the train is moving very slowly backwards not shooting forwards.
You do need to think about your similes a bit more.

You're a zealot beyond reason. The extent of your logic is that you don't like the EU, therefore the EU is failing and has failed us.

Foxy said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

another_richard said:

Nissan is only the most prominent example.

Its the explanation as to why manufacturing output was higher when Thatcher left office than it was when she became PM.

Now there were certainly localised areas which were not able to be redeveloped economically but that wasn't a process which began in 1979.

For example, here's a list of mines in the Rhondda Valley:

http://rhonddavalleys.com/rhondda_collieries_chronologically.htm

There were 9 closures in the 1950s and another 14 in the 1960s.

This is another of those left wing myths that needs killing (the point to which you are answering not your point)

In 1958 there were 700,000 men employed in coal mining in the UK. In 1979 that had dropped to 250,000. The largest number of pit closures and job losses were under Wilson in the 1960s, not Thatcher in the 1980s.

Though in the 1960's there was full employment, and unlike the 1980's, suitable well renumerated employment nearby was available.

anothernick said:

It is not in May's power to offer a general election. There is no guarantee she could persuade her backbenchers to vote for one. And in any case no sane person would rely on a political promise from her, her record of going back on her word is second to none.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Recidivist said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Benpointer said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Benpointer said:

Superb article @Cyclefree. Thanks

I for one had never come across Nico Henderson's analysis - what remarkable insight it shows.

I fear we may be about to enter a period of significant decline as we cut ourselves adrift from Europe once again.

I do wonder how the other 94% of the planet not tied to the EU manage to survive and thrive given that apparently it is impossible to exist as a civilisation without EU membership.

Well 80% of that 94% exist and 'thrive' at much lower standards of living than we have enjoyed, and most of the remainder benefit from their own large markets or huge supplies of natural resources.

Since we don't have either of the latter, a drift to relative poverty is what we will face.

I recommend you read Nicholas Henderson's note.

https://c59574e9047e61130f13-3f71d0fe2b653c4f00f32175760e96e7.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/D98F7773620F4D7EA92A697C0808A5FC.pdf

I have read it and to be honest it is pretty much meaningless in this day and age when so much has changed in the intervening period.



His note is a reflection of his own despondency about the future - a future that actually did not come to pass.

The UK has historically had a higher GDP per capita than France, and quite a lot higher during the industrial revolution. The figures got closer in the fifties and sixties where the French did rather better than the UK at indicative planning. But the seventies the French had a small edge - but that was the era of the three day week over here. I am not sure what exactly was fantastic about Thatcher as her rather gormless demand contraction knocked per capita GDP for six compared to that of France. That was the only time the UK fell seriously behind France, but even that wasn't for long.

It was the Blair/Brown years where the UK raced ahead of France. Who knows why - not me for sure. I suspect nobody on this forum can explain it.

Simply wrong. Our GDP per capita was a 5th lower than France in 1980 as a result of the mismanagement of the 70s by both Tory and Labour Governments. That gap was closing by the time she left power in 1990 and Blair/Brown continued closing it by following her macro-economic policies.

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/BBCHelenaLee/status/1094722822415495169