Because The United Kingdom?

[Stuart Galbraith]

12 hours ago, Murph said:

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

Yeah, ive read that too. There is supposedly a good book out on Attlee and Churchill's wartime relationship, which would probably be worth sourcing.

Ultimately they both came from the same background, so its not surprising they could cross the divide. Attlee had the ability to be all things to all men I think, an enviable trait in politics.

[Stuart Galbraith]

14 hours ago, TrustMe said:

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  

Its not that I think Labour will be much good. They have yet to unveil more than one major policy. OTOH, its the same trend when every tired Government is in far too long. People want a change. And when they see senior members of the Conservative party having boozy parties whilst they are in lock down, when they see our Prime minister was one of the primary causes for the spread of covid, when they see daily evidence of the poor mistakes made 13 years ago (and the primary architect of that actually invited back into Cabinet), you have to wonder at the mentality of the Conservative party senior leadership that they think they actually have done a really good job.

Conservatives need to go away for 40 or 50 years and figure out what they are actually for, because they give absolutely no indication today what they are for, other than remaining in power, like shit stuck to a blanket.

Personally what I would like would be the country to be between Labour and the Liberals fighting over the middle ground, so I could happily vote liberal and believe it might do some good. Cant see that happening in my lifetime though.

[sunday]

3 hours ago, lucklucky said:

It was ideology that stifled Britain.

Indeed, as Hong Kong, and Sir John James Cowperthwaite, show:

Quote

The late Milton Friedman explained in a 1997 tribute to Cowperthwaite how remarkable his economic legacy is: “Compare Britain—the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution, the nineteenth-century economic superpower on whose empire the sun never set—with Hong Kong, a spit of land, overcrowded, with no resources except for a great harbor. Yet within four decades the residents of this spit of overcrowded land had achieved a level of income one-third higher than that enjoyed by the residents of its former mother country.”

A Scot by birth, Cowperthwaite attended Merchiston Castle School in Edinburgh and then studied classics at St Andrews University and at Christ's College at Cambridge. He served in the British Colonial Administrative Service in HK during the early 1940s. After the war he was asked to come up with plans for the government to boost economic growth. To his credit, he had his eyes open and noticed that the economy was already recovering quite nicely without government direction. So while the mother country lurched in a socialist direction at home under Clement Attlee, Cowperthwaite became an advocate of what he called “positive non-interventionism” in HK. Later as the colony’s Financial Secretary from 1961 to 1971, he personally administered it.

https://fee.org/articles/the-man-behind-the-hong-kong-miracle/

[TrustMe]

9 hours ago, Mikel2 said:

Why did taxpayers have to pay for your milk?

Personnelly, I think it was money well spent  

[TrustMe]

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Its not that I think Labour will be much good. They have yet to unveil more than one major policy. OTOH, its the same trend when every tired Government is in far too long. People want a change. And when they see senior members of the Conservative party having boozy parties whilst they are in lock down, when they see our Prime minister was one of the primary causes for the spread of covid, when they see daily evidence of the poor mistakes made 13 years ago (and the primary architect of that actually invited back into Cabinet), you have to wonder at the mentality of the Conservative party senior leadership that they think they actually have done a really good job.

Conservatives need to go away for 40 or 50 years and figure out what they are actually for, because they give absolutely no indication today what they are for, other than remaining in power, like shit stuck to a blanket.

Personally what I would like would be the country to be between Labour and the Liberals fighting over the middle ground, so I could happily vote liberal and believe it might do some good. Cant see that happening in my lifetime though.

I agree, due to the state of the economy I don't think Labour has much room to maneuver.

[lucklucky]

23 minutes ago, TrustMe said:

I agree, due to the state of the economy I don't think Labour has much room to maneuver.

Let me correct this:

...due to the power of civil service, Quangos, NGO's, legal corruption and leftist political violence which police will do nothing about Labour has much room to manoeuvre.

 

 

 

[lucklucky]

2 hours ago, sunday said:

Indeed, as Hong Kong, and Sir John James Cowperthwaite, show:

https://fee.org/articles/the-man-behind-the-hong-kong-miracle/

Thanks

[TrustMe]

53 minutes ago, lucklucky said:

Let me correct this:

...due to the power of civil service, Quangos, NGO's, legal corruption and leftist political violence which police will do nothing about Labour has much room to manoeuvre.

 

I'm not sure what left wing political parties there are in Portugal. But in Britian a hard left party will never get into power. Labour under Corbyn tried that 4 years ago and had the worst result since the 1930's. 

It just won't happen.

 

 

Edited November 25, 2023 by TrustMe

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, TrustMe said:

I agree, due to the state of the economy I don't think Labour has much room to maneuver.

As my mother put it, Labour will be in 10 years fixing the economy, then get voted out, and the Tories will screw it up again. Cynical perhaps, but nobody has any confidence in Conservative claims to fiscal brilliance after the last 13 years effort.

[Stuart Galbraith]

33 minutes ago, TrustMe said:

I'm not sure what left wing political parties there are in Portugal. But in Britian a hard left party will never get into power. Labour under Corbyn tried that 4 years ago and had the worst result since the 1930's. 

It just won't happen.

 

 

Well, if it didnt happen after the huge difficulty of trying to create Brexit, when fair wind and everything else was in Corbyns favour, yes, I have to say its difficult to believe it could happen after Corbyn disgraced himself (and proved to be a rabid antisemite which never goes down well with the British public) at the last election.

Far left had a chance, and once again they spectacularly pissed it down the drain. So now its moderate left's chance. If the far left doesnt screw it up for them, again.

Edited November 25, 2023 by Stuart Galbraith

[lucklucky]

1 hour ago, TrustMe said:

I'm not sure what left wing political parties there are in Portugal. But in Britian a hard left party will never get into power. Labour under Corbyn tried that 4 years ago and had the worst result since the 1930's. 

It just won't happen.

 

 

What? The Tories are a left - centre party.

[TrustMe]

39 minutes ago, lucklucky said:

What? The Tories are a left - centre party.

The in power Tory (Conservative) party are a hard right party. At the moment the Labour party is a centre left party and will probably win the election next year as long as they don't do anything stupid.

[TrustMe]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Well, if it didnt happen after the huge difficulty of trying to create Brexit, when fair wind and everything else was in Corbyns favour, yes, I have to say its difficult to believe it could happen after Corbyn disgraced himself (and proved to be a rabid antisemite which never goes down well with the British public) at the last election.

Far left had a chance, and once again they spectacularly pissed it down the drain. So now its moderate left's chance. If the far left doesnt screw it up for them, again.

I can see Starmer staying in power for maybe 2 elections. As long as he doesn't follow the US in starting a war somewhere.

[lucklucky]

7 minutes ago, TrustMe said:

The in power Tory (Conservative) party are a hard right party. At the moment the Labour party is a centre left party and will probably win the election next year as long as they don't do anything stupid.

Haha hard right in what? 

high level expenditures? high taxes? highly regulated country? high entropy country?   punishing  freelancers? punishing taxes for stuff that are already paid like hereditary tax? uncontrollable immigration? police protecting the hard left and Islamist intimidation, low level violence and denying of other people civil rights?

 

Edited November 25, 2023 by lucklucky

[TrustMe]

Just now, lucklucky said:

Haha hard right in what? 

high level expenditures? high taxes? highly regulated country? high entropy country?   punishing  freelancers? punishing taxes for stuff that are already paid like hereditary tax? uncontrollable immigration? police protecting the hard left and Islamist intimidation ,  low level violence and denying of other people civil rights?

 

I know it seems weird but welcome to British politics   

 

[Murph]

Also some what interesting, is that the Iron Lady made a comment on Attlee that he was all substance with no style and she respected him.  Plus Churchill and Bevin also apparently got along well.  Bevin being rated as one of the greatest Foreign Ministers.  

[Murph]

22 minutes ago, TrustMe said:

The in power Tory (Conservative) party are a hard right party. At the moment the Labour party is a centre left party and will probably win the election next year as long as they don't do anything stupid.

Sorry, the Tories look to me to be a pretty squishy center moderate party with little or no spine.  Labour looks to be pretty much Soviet Union 2.0.

[TrustMe]

12 minutes ago, Murph said:

Sorry, the Tories look to me to be a pretty squishy center moderate party with little or no spine.  Labour looks to be pretty much Soviet Union 2.0.

There's been lots of topics full of socialist vs communists posts i'm not going to go into it. All i'll say is that the US views differ compared to European views.

Edited November 25, 2023 by TrustMe

[Stuart Galbraith]

3 hours ago, TrustMe said:

The in power Tory (Conservative) party are a hard right party. At the moment the Labour party is a centre left party and will probably win the election next year as long as they don't do anything stupid.

Might me accurate to say the Conservative s are a centre right party, led around by the nose by a hard right clique. Not wholly different from American Republicans.

[Stuart Galbraith]

3 hours ago, Murph said:

Sorry, the Tories look to me to be a pretty squishy center moderate party with little or no spine.  Labour looks to be pretty much Soviet Union 2.0.

Murph, it really is not. Be aware the Conservative press always says that.

[Rick]

Hhmmm... 

 

[Colin]

10 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

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.

 

I have read that in late 40's/early 50's that to get steel you must export 70% of your production, because the UK was critically short of hard currency. Hence the reason the Landrover went to aluminium, which there was large quantities in country and lots of cheap machines to bend it, along with workers from the aircraft plants. In a way the UK won the war, but also lost.

[urbanoid]

13 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Might me accurate to say the Conservative s are a centre right party, led around by the nose by a hard right clique. Not wholly different from American Republicans.

Can you list some characteristics that would make them 'hard right'? 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Anyone right of moderate right?

 

No, thats too broad a brush. As far as policies, I can only go by how I classify the Conservatives. There is a middle of the road, happy go lucky freebooting bunch that believe in free trade, maximum freedom of rights, low legistlation, low tax. They even liked being in Europe for the trade opportunities it brought. Whilst Ive issues with the low tax ( Because like nice roads, healthcare, well funded local councils and having a strong military so I dont get bombed in my bed), I respect all those positions. I dont necessarily agree how they are done, but as a basic concept, they really arent that far away from the Liberals or the Labour middle ground, who all essentiall believe, to lesser or more extents, in many of the same things.

In the Conservatives, the 'far right' are by myself classified as an increased willingness to bring out authoritarian legislation. This was strongly in evidence in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in the UK, and it involves such things as increased surveillance of online activity, and email hacking and phone surveillance. I dont necessarily think being concerned about immigration makes you hard right, but the way they do it (keeping them in places that are effectively prisons, reducing staffing for processing so they are kept hanging around forever, painting over waiting rooms modified for children with grey paint to make them less welcoming, the Rwanda plan, the Empire Windrush repatriations, etc etc) generally does show an intolerance for anyone that doesnt have white skin and WASP perspectives. They also show a distinct lack of interest in the poorer elements of our society. At least the moderate conservatives believe you can only lift people out of poverty by giving them a job, and I agree. The far right ones dont really care, as long as their precious financial insitituions are preserved. And I believe that had an awful lot to do with Brexit, or at least the right wings fixation over it. The immigration was just a ruse to sell it to the public.

Thats my classification anyway, fwiw. Im sure other people have their own perspectives on such things whom are willing to tell me im completely wrong.

If you look at it objectively, there is such a wide split in the Conservatives that I think there is a genuine prospect of splitting into two different parties. The gap between both wings has grown so wide, its making them ungovernable. John Major found this as long ago as the 1990's, and arguably its gotten worse since then.

[Stuart Galbraith]

16 hours ago, Colin said:

I have read that in late 40's/early 50's that to get steel you must export 70% of your production, because the UK was critically short of hard currency. Hence the reason the Landrover went to aluminium, which there was large quantities in country and lots of cheap machines to bend it, along with workers from the aircraft plants. In a way the UK won the war, but also lost.

Yeah, there was lots we were doing in the same period. Ive said many times before, we had real problems keeping British railways running, because we were exporting the most excellent Welsh coal to America to pay off our wartime loans, and importing what was essentially coal and wood briquettes which cause untold problems with locomotives designed to run on high calorific coal. We even briefly experimened on running locomotives on oil, which on an island largely made out of coal, really tells you how hard up we were (and briefly, how cheap oil was).

Re Landrover, the early ones were RAF cockpit green, because the ministry of supply had a shitton of that left over from all the Spitfires and Lancasters. But im sure you knew that.

My own view, I think we tripped in 1945, and we have yet to find our step since. Yes, the 1945 Government did contribute to that, a little. But ive yet to see one since get it right, with a convincing plan for the future. Wilson had it close when he talked about exploiting the 'White Heat of Technology'.  But he did nothing to establish it, because the Unions didnt allow it presumably, and he was a bit of a fucking idiot.. Thatcher did nothing other than taking the financial shackles off, and effectively built the PRC economy. Again, didnt enfranchise the country worth a damn as far as I can see.

Some American, It may have been kissinger Im not sure, said Britain lost and Empire, but has yet to find a role. Its still true.