Jump to content

Because The United Kingdom?


Mr King

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Ah, the Clement Attlee Government. You mean the guys who fixed the housing problem, fought China and the Norks in South Korea, formed NATO, and gave Britain the Atomic bomb and free at point of use healthcare?

Contrast with the Tories that cut Britains defence by a third, cut the Army and Airforce to shreds, withdrew from our best trading and political institution,reduced police by 20000, broke the housing market, fought the Afghan war with enduring cluelessness,  mismanaged the Corona crisis, kicked over the Gadaffi regime that added to the migrant crisis we were now struggling with, and are now talking about ending free prescriptions for the out of work?

Attlee made mistakes, but they werent even close to the uttershitshow over the past 13 years that these clueless buggers have been indulging in. Give credit, the Tories once again beat socialism. :D

 

 

 

Atlee was the ideologue that choose austerity as moral imperative not as a means to level the budget.  He and his government were also control freaks all about controlling all aspects of society.

People that got food from overseas had that food deducted from their ration.

Milk was destroyed if above production set by government cheese flavours were destroyed because of "rationalisation". Bread, flour and flour confectionery which was not rationed in war was from 1946. 

In 1947 potato rationing started.

Britain was in rationing longer than Germany and France.  This was a choice not a necessity.  

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 9.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

In 1979 when I started school, every child got a 150ml bottle of milk to drink each lunchtime. The idea was that the milk would boost physical development in children that had been lacking in the post WW2 rationing system.

But then Thatcher goes and cancels the tiny bottles of milk.

What a bitch.

I used to love that milk as did all the other children.

Again, what a bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funnily enough, I dont have a problem with that. If they were unwise enough not to leave it to someone, may as well somebody have it.

In fact, there is quite a lot of people who use ancestry and other services to try and find relatives. My Grandmother colleced on it fairly recently, not at large a sum as she might if other relatives hadnt come out of the cupboard, but still. I would argue its fairly rare that Charles collects anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, lucklucky said:

 

Atlee was the ideologue that choose austerity as moral imperative not as a means to level the budget.  He and his government were also control freaks all about controlling all aspects of society.

People that got food from overseas had that food deducted from their ration.

Milk was destroyed if above production set by government cheese flavours were destroyed because of "rationalisation". Bread, flour and flour confectionery which was not rationed in war was from 1946. 

In 1947 potato rationing started.

Britain was in rationing longer than Germany and France.  This was a choice not a necessity.  

 

 

 

 

No, that has always been the argument the Tories have always made. 'Oh, if we had got in, you would have had rivers of honey and we would have kept the Empire! :D

The country was broke and worn out after 6 years of war. Warehousing was destroyed, the Railways were on their last legs, shipping was denuded. The idea we were suddenly going to switch on Reaganite consumierism overnight is ridiculous. Christ, there was still derelict areas of London, well into the 1960's. In West Germany and Japan, which had much the same problem, they utilized just the same kind of command Capitalism that Britain did. It was the only way to ge the economies moving.

Id argue at least in part that rationing was people coming back from the forces from abroad. As they were abroad, they could consume produce that was already there, or shipped in from the US. Dump them all in the UK, you suddenly have a problem with not many ports, not much warehousing, inadequate shipping, and inadequate transport. Much of the subsequent nationalization of the railways and transport services can be seen in this light, probably too enthusiastically Ill admit, but in the end there was too much demand, and not enough supply.

If we had a Churchill Government in 1945, he would have been beset by jus the same problems, and even less controls allowed to deal with it. Id argue its fortunate for his legacy he missed the immediate postwar years, and most of the 1950's. Thinking back to when they did get in, the 1950's Governments of Churchill and Eden, I dont remember them being any more successful when given the poison challice. Neither for the matter was Macmillan, whom presided over a decline of British productivity that was fairly unending.

Britains Empire was ending, and we were hit with all the inevitable effects of that. Its useful to blame it on socialism, but that no more accurate than blaming ALL the industrial ill effects of the 1980's on Margaret Thatcher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, TrustMe said:

In 1979 when I started school, every child got a 150ml bottle of milk to drink each lunchtime. The idea was that the milk would boost physical development in children that had been lacking in the post WW2 rationing system.

But then Thatcher goes and cancels the tiny bottles of milk.

What a bitch.

I used to love that milk as did all the other children.

Again, what a bitch.

Margaret Thatcher, milk snatcher.

Yeah, I loved my milk. Good for kids, good for farmers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

No, that has always been the argument the Tories have always made. 'Oh, if we had got in, you would have had rivers of honey and we would have kept the Empire! :D

The country was broke and worn out after 6 years of war. Warehousing was destroyed, the Railways were on their last legs, shipping was denuded. The idea we were suddenly going to switch on Reaganite consumierism overnight is ridiculous. Christ, there was still derelict areas of London, well into the 1960's. In West Germany and Japan, which had much the same problem, they utilized just the same kind of command Capitalism that Britain did. It was the only way to ge the economies moving.

Id argue at least in part that rationing was people coming back from the forces from abroad. As they were abroad, they could consume produce that was already there, or shipped in from the US. Dump them all in the UK, you suddenly have a problem with not many ports, not much warehousing, inadequate shipping, and inadequate transport. Much of the subsequent nationalization of the railways and transport services can be seen in this light, probably too enthusiastically Ill admit, but in the end there was too much demand, and not enough supply.

If we had a Churchill Government in 1945, he would have been beset by jus the same problems, and even less controls allowed to deal with it. Id argue its fortunate for his legacy he missed the immediate postwar years, and most of the 1950's. Thinking back to when they did get in, the 1950's Governments of Churchill and Eden, I dont remember them being any more successful when given the poison challice. Neither for the matter was Macmillan, whom presided over a decline of British productivity that was fairly unending.

Britains Empire was ending, and we were hit with all the inevitable effects of that. Its useful to blame it on socialism, but that no more accurate than blaming ALL the industrial ill effects of the 1980's on Margaret Thatcher.

While I do agree somewhat, I think the Labour government was just another happy face socialism.  Attlee was by all accounts a decent enough man, but a little too cozy to the "pink" side of things.  But I do agree that Imperial Britain was on its very last legs by 1945.  Getting quit of India probably did the "Empire" a great deal of good in the long run.  Same for Israel/Palestine.  

As for the decline of British productivity, I will argue that was the fault of the every encroaching socialist system that was a legacy of David Lloyd George and his ilk.  Socialism destroys everything it touches, it just takes longer than Communism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Free stuff usually turns out to be the most expensive. 

The "free milk at school" thing is a great example of social engineering 101. Create an emotional reaction in children via the factors of food and free stuff, generate some oxytocin and a subconcious belief that things can be free with a particular economic system in place. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, TrustMe said:

In 1979 when I started school, every child got a 150ml bottle of milk to drink each lunchtime. The idea was that the milk would boost physical development in children that had been lacking in the post WW2 rationing system.

But then Thatcher goes and cancels the tiny bottles of milk.

What a bitch.

I used to love that milk as did all the other children.

Again, what a bitch.

 

So thirty years AFTER the war, your still suffering from the post war rationing malnourishment?

My folks were pissed when they stopped 'free lunch' as school--but they COULD afford buying it.

Edited by NickM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Murph said:

While I do agree somewhat, I think the Labour government was just another happy face socialism.  Attlee was by all accounts a decent enough man, but a little too cozy to the "pink" side of things.  But I do agree that Imperial Britain was on its very last legs by 1945.  Getting quit of India probably did the "Empire" a great deal of good in the long run.  Same for Israel/Palestine.  

As for the decline of British productivity, I will argue that was the fault of the every encroaching socialist system that was a legacy of David Lloyd George and his ilk.  Socialism destroys everything it touches, it just takes longer than Communism.

I don't think he was cozy, so much has holding the party together, including the fringe. The same could be said of wilson, because he faced the same dilemma. So does Starmer.

Believe it or not, Attlee was originally from an upper class upbringing, and was originally a Tory. He only changed his mind when he was given a tour of London East End. HE was no firebrand, but he was willing to work with people that were. So was Churchill.

Productivity came do to a simple algorithm. Socialism+lazymanagement+get rich quick merchants owners+aging industrial and transport infrastructure×Germany+Japan=Industrial failure.

I'm frankly amazed we make anything here anymore, it's no thanks to either party we are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JWB said:

Yes, let's make ourselves dependent upon a supplier already reluctant to integrate our own weapons. Fucking idiots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NickM said:

 

So thirty years AFTER the war, your still suffering from the post war rationing malnourishment?

My folks were pissed when they stopped 'free lunch' as school--but they COULD afford buying it.

It's something I remember fondly as a child, I can remember all my class mates sitting around our table drinking milk. It's something i'll always remember.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

...I'm frankly amazed we make anything here anymore, it's no thanks to either party we are.

What we manufacture in England is all foreign owned. British management runs companies into the ground, the foreign owned ones with foreign managment structure succeeds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TrustMe said:

It's something I remember fondly as a child, I can remember all my class mates sitting around our table drinking milk. It's something i'll always remember.

It's kinda like Americans saluting the flag, other nations just don't get it.

It's amazing after spend 40 years cutting everything how little the state wants to give us, and we are still an economic basket case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

It's kinda like Americans saluting the flag, other nations just don't get it.

It's amazing after spend 40 years cutting everything how little the state wants to give us, and we are still an economic basket case.

Lol, that's funny.

I think i'll even vote in the next general election against the Tories. Even as I typed that, I feel dirty about voting :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I don't think he was cozy, so much has holding the party together, including the fringe. The same could be said of wilson, because he faced the same dilemma. So does Starmer.

Believe it or not, Attlee was originally from an upper class upbringing, and was originally a Tory. He only changed his mind when he was given a tour of London East End. HE was no firebrand, but he was willing to work with people that were. So was Churchill.

Productivity came do to a simple algorithm. Socialism+lazymanagement+get rich quick merchants owners+aging industrial and transport infrastructure×Germany+Japan=Industrial failure.

I'm frankly amazed we make anything here anymore, it's no thanks to either party we are.

I read somewhere that Churchill and Attlee actual got along decently.  I cannot recall where I read that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, NickM said:

...So thirty years AFTER the war, your still suffering from the post war rationing malnourishment?...

It is British cuisine, malnourishment is part of it, war rationing or no war rationing. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/23/2023 at 4:12 PM, TrustMe said:

In 1979 when I started school, every child got a 150ml bottle of milk to drink each lunchtime. The idea was that the milk would boost physical development in children that had been lacking in the post WW2 rationing system.

But then Thatcher goes and cancels the tiny bottles of milk.

What a bitch.

I used to love that milk as did all the other children.

Again, what a bitch.

Why did taxpayers have to pay for your milk?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

No, that has always been the argument the Tories have always made. 'Oh, if we had got in, you would have had rivers of honey and we would have kept the Empire! :D

The country was broke and worn out after 6 years of war. Warehousing was destroyed, the Railways were on their last legs, shipping was denuded. The idea we were suddenly going to switch on Reaganite consumierism overnight is ridiculous. Christ, there was still derelict areas of London, well into the 1960's. In West Germany and Japan, which had much the same problem, they utilized just the same kind of command Capitalism that Britain did. It was the only way to ge the economies moving.

Id argue at least in part that rationing was people coming back from the forces from abroad. As they were abroad, they could consume produce that was already there, or shipped in from the US. Dump them all in the UK, you suddenly have a problem with not many ports, not much warehousing, inadequate shipping, and inadequate transport. Much of the subsequent nationalization of the railways and transport services can be seen in this light, probably too enthusiastically Ill admit, but in the end there was too much demand, and not enough supply.

If we had a Churchill Government in 1945, he would have been beset by jus the same problems, and even less controls allowed to deal with it. Id argue its fortunate for his legacy he missed the immediate postwar years, and most of the 1950's. Thinking back to when they did get in, the 1950's Governments of Churchill and Eden, I dont remember them being any more successful when given the poison challice. Neither for the matter was Macmillan, whom presided over a decline of British productivity that was fairly unending.

Britains Empire was ending, and we were hit with all the inevitable effects of that. Its useful to blame it on socialism, but that no more accurate than blaming ALL the industrial ill effects of the 1980's on Margaret Thatcher.

Still that trope?  if UK was broke what were Germany, Italy or France?

The Marshall Plan gave the largest value of all  with 3.2 B$ to UK (of which only 384M were loans the remaining being grants)  for comparison 1.4B$ to Federal German Republic (216M loans) and Germany had to pay reparations.

It was ideology that stifled Britain.

Germany let the market grow even if Allies in first years of occupation tried to block it . Instead UK Gov. was "managing" everything, but did not produced much.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirtschaftswunder

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_economic_miracle

Edited by lucklucky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, lucklucky said:

Still that trope?  if UK was broke what were Germany, Italy or France?

The Marshall Plan gave the largest value of all  with 3.2 B$ to UK (of which only 384M were loans the remaining being grants)  for comparison 1.4B$ to Federal German Republic (216M loans) and Germany had to pay reparations.

It was ideology that stifled Britain.

Germany let the market grow even if Allies in first years of occupation tried to block it . Instead UK Gov. was "managing" everything, but did not produced much.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirtschaftswunder

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_economic_miracle

Under military occupation for the former, and subject to top down reconstruction for all of them. Hence the reason why I find it a bit ridiculous singling out Britain for employing the same methodology of reconstruction as everyone else, just because it had the opportunity to form a Socialist Government.

There wasnt even a West German Government until 1949 Everything before then was put together under the leadership of the Military occupation forces in Germany and Japan. If you think what the Labour Government in Britain was doing was in any way weird, reflect on who it was that got the Volkswagen plant at Wolfsburg running again, under precisely the same methods.

There was no real 'free market' in Germany unless you accept the idea of 'free government'. In fact, and I know a bit about this, do you know how the Italian economy was got going again? The black market. Which was one of the many ways in which the Mafia weedled their way back into Italian society. Think that was a good way of avoiding rationing?

As for money, quite a lot of that was going into the stringent terms to pay America off (which came to a head over Suez). But there was also the matter of building an atomic bomb, rearming for the cold war, fighting in Korea, Malaysia, latterly Borneo, etc etc. There was only so much money to go around. Then there was the crisis of the deep freeze of 1947/48, when we consumed far more coal than we had budgeted for, to the point where Britain had to tell America to take over the reins of holding Greece together, because we were utterly broke.

Outsiders are impressed by what we did in 1939 to 45, and hence the shortfall from 1945 to 1950 is put on Socialism. Yes, they did some cluelss things, but also did a lot of good things. And if people are going to continually rip shreds out of Attlee, they have to explain why he did such a good job (as well as exactly the same guys postwar in the Labour Government) in Churchill's national unity Government.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...