First line from the article: All I can say is he must have been thick as pigshit if he was taken in by what was blatantly complete bollocks. And I don't say this with hindsight, it was clear as it was happening. So I'm afraid I can't go for Hitchens' belated piety over what I'm sure was venality more than gullibility. Anyone who voted for the cow and now regrets it has got what they richly deserve. Unfortunately the rest of us are up to our eyeballs in it with them.
I remember my late dad incredulous that my then fiancee and I were made up about that our Abbey National mortgage was being changed from a mutual to a PLC bank. 'Wait and see, this will **** the economy in 20 years as all she wants is for you to borrow cheap money that you can't afford, and for you to spend your 'free' shares as soon as possible, thus unlocking the investments of future generations now." The whole economic model of the 80's was to pump up consumer spending by whatever means (such as borrowing against future generations and the structural stability of banks and companies), thus massively - and artificially - inflating property and manufactured goods, coupled, of course, with the practical murder of our manufacturing base and therefore starting the process of giving us our worst balance of trade figures since WWII. It did, however, make enough people in the Home Counties (where most of the seats are) feel good enough about themselves to become locked-in to the process. Nothing wrong, in a Keynesian manner, to borrow against the future as long as you're investing in the infrastructure, T&D and education. That hasn't happened. Ah well, we did get Only Fools and Horses, The Pet Shop Boys and a totally divided kingdom from her time at the helm.
Not really. The 2008 crash was driven by the Worldwide crash, which was primarily caused by the US mortgage scandal, and the global meltdown that followed, when the banking sector realised their bonds were worth **** all. The boom and bust cycle of the Thatcher era was them completely mismanaging the domestic economy. They allowed it to overheat then tried cooling it by pumping up interest rates to a level that crippled the people they'd encouraged into home ownership, and the whole thing collapsed. Negative equity and lack of disposable income was the prime cause, and it was all their doing.
thanks. I would not know about the 80s much seeing as i was only a tiddler. I do feel that there was a lot more free money around than just us and european banks were very much guilty and got away with it in germany please do keep describing those times i nthis regard. i find it interesting.
There's nothing wrong with debt, as long as you have the means to repay it. Therefore the UK mortgages of the early to mid 2000's were OK in the main. The irresponsible lending was when they started offering up to 125% mortgages, banking on the market continuing to rise exponentially for those daft enough to sign up for them. However, since the 2008 crash people have got used to base interest rates being at practically zero, and have borrowed in that basis. Back in 1989 the base rate hit 15%!!!! If those days ever returned most of the homeowners under circa 45 in the country would face bankrupcy. Even at half that, the level of repossession would be off the scale and we'd be in a very dark place.
You didn't need to be any sort of economic "expert" to see it coming. Just common sense, unadulterated by the desire for short-term gain, should have made it clear what was going on. Publicly owned assets sold off in small chunks so they could be hoovered up later by the big boys, because most ordinary people aren't really interested in having shares and will sell them on for a few thou. As a few of the saner commentators of the time said it was just like selling the family silver to give an illusion of wealth. It was hopelessly mismanaged and was eventually found out. It's a pity it took Peter Hitchens three decades to realise it. That was only part of the story, though. Almost all Thatcherite policies were socially divisive. She and her cohorts thrived on confrontation and how that can be considered good for society I have no idea.
i do agree... both massive 125% mortgages (buying cars on the house making the most expensive car ever bought) were mad and borrowin to the hilt on times that are clearly only going to last max 3/4 more years is crezy. I think it could be as little as 2 years before it goes the opposite way. however the 14%s and stuff would bankrupt most all even if borrowing sustaimably?
That's why people will only buy to set standards, initially people would but to the Chinese grades, now they specify European, Japanese standards.....not equivalents
The Germans subsidise car production and that appears to work well for them. It's called common sense mate. The subsidy ends up being a fraction of the net gain to the economy from the industry when you calculate the tax revenue generated and the export trade.
The issue comes down to greed for me. Many quotes of different countries etc here. The French are lunatics in unions and are driving their country to eventful ruin with masses of retired at 60 and 35 to 30 hour weeks... they are all but Greek! Germany on the other hand work for their corn. They have works councils and striking the laws all abide by. Here it seems the issue is or was greed. Unions take a mile when in protected industry si did the tories simply decide to take the easy way buy selling all. I don't know. Obviously those in unions see them as pure as driven snow.... But for me I see pure disfunction on both sides where recourse from both management and union to any change is to instigate disruptive behaviour prior to settling on anything. It's like it's expected. So...... it all needs to change.
**** off - who said that? If you can't make a coherent case based upon facts, that doesn't give you the right to attribute sweeping generalisations about those with a counter view. The Tories despise organised labour for a variety of reasons, and greed is uppermost in their mind too. And just to **** up your generalisations even more, a majority of the most intransigent union reps I know (and have faced as a manager) in train driving unions are to a man (and at least one woman) staunch Conservatives: generally seems to follow with a his and hers Merc on the driveway of their detached houses in leafy suburbia. That said, I trust my interests more to a shop steward than to some pencil-necked accountant trying to cut arbitrary costs just before their appraisal. There's more things wrong with the Anglo-American neo-liberal economic model than ever-dwindling union representation feller.
Just the impression i get..... If i don't say it i could walk way with the wrong understanding. Did i not see someone in a union saying they got more in collective bargaining. I am actually blaming both sides if you didn't notice. Both sides have the same distrust issues.
No, you read someone in a union saying that nobody who was not in union has ever turned down a pay rise gained by a union through collective bargaining.
