@@kanedNunable I was still in primary school when David Cameron first came into power. All through growing up, coming to consider my aspirations, it was all under the Tories. It certainly didn't help that they were in power, because I'd genuinely never thought I could really achieve what I wanted to. That I could have my own home etc. I still don't think I'll be able to have my own home for decades maybe, but we'll see.
Very true. The fact is that Mrs Thatcher brought in very similar legislation in the 1980s. The fact that Labour failed to do this when Barbara Castle tried to originally introduce the legislation , well this backfired on them in the 1970s. How ironic that Jim Callaghan was the main political force that stopped Barbara Castle's original legislation. Also the really irony was that this brought down Jim Callaghan's government in 1979.
The UK today has full employment without a stated policy of trying to achieve full employment. Full employment, high immigration and the need for higher taxes is all due to our ageing society. This is the great driver. If Labour are going to improve the NHS and public services then they will need to raise taxes.
We've had full employment on the back of historically unprecedented low interest rates, cheap energy & goods and artificially suppressed labour costs (e.g. not meeting the cost of child rearing) That's going away now. Unemployment hasn't been solved we just had a pause.
@@nettcologne9186 Yes I would. The other problem is high living costs. If you look at London you have relatively high wages but still a lot of poverty. The issue isn't wages, it's the lack of affordable homes. If you see wages suddenly going up and still have a broken housing situation then the danger is you just push up rents further for many working people. You need to fix the housing situation.
@@nettcologne9186 Full employment is absolutely not the same thing as people earning a living wage. It covers people working on a part time wage or zero hour contracts as well. Quite concerning that you appear not to understand that at all.
There seems to be some juggling of statistics here. Before the election the Labour Party were portrayed as having created one and quarter million unemployed which turned out to be an inflated figure. The true figure was one million. Subsequently the method of quantifying unemployment was changed. By 1982 the unemployment rate was 3 million unemployed - three times the unenployment rate of Labour. Subsequent to that the Tories changed the unemployment assessment 33 separate times.
Yeah I understand, but surely even as the unemployment figure officially stands at three million, at a particular moment, aren't there people going into and coming out of unemployment and therefore that provides a dynamic which can be referred to as "the rate" .
Yes, but Labour under Harold Wilson kept unemployment under 1 million. However, the structural problems within the economy, the adoption of the IMF plan caused unemployment to rise to 1, 700, 000 coupled with high inflation above 20% and daily strike action destroyed that government. But we suffered much worse under Thatcher! Unemployment was about 4 million (they changed the way you calculate the figures about twenty times). Britain's industrial base disappeared. And she did not stop the overall decline of the economy. Those were horrible years, I remember them!
Capitalism creates an irreconcilable conflict between those who own the means of production and those who create true wealth. The balance has never been so tipped against wealth creators. And we need to blow away the myth that wealth is not just unpaid labour. The current economic system is so full of contradictions it can’t operate efficiently or fairly.
Any political analysis that doesn’t touch on the fact that the UK issues its own currency & can never run out if the ability to do so. Versus, eg, the euro using countries that gave up their ability to issue their own currency.
Devaluation of the pound is not something you would want to do indefinitely. Devaluing the pound will increase inflation, government debt obligations and make the UK government less credit worthy as the value of government debt would be collapse. Liz Truss tried this, government debt tanked in value and a bunch of pensions nearly went bankrupt and it was only the BOE intervention that saved the Gilt Market from crashing and the fiscal space that had been gained by the tax rises under Johnson was spaffed away paying increased interest on government debt.
@@Jay_Johnson You’re not getting this. Your government issues the pounds everyone else uses to buy gilts. Your central bank sets interest rates on your gilts. The euro using countries on the other hand don’t own their own central bank. So rely on the good will of the ECB
@@katiecannon8186 and no-one will buy gilts if they are worthless because the interest rate is set too low. If the government(/banks) keep creating money you get inflation and that will erode living standards and disincentivise foreign investment. Don’t get me wrong the Euro only works to perpetuate existing economic inequality in the EU and I wouldn’t want the UK to adopt the euro but you overstate the utility of independent monetary policy.
@@alst4817 I'm literally a Keynesian not a monetarist, I just reject 'modern monetary theory' as I think it only applies to the US where they use their political and economic hegemony to essentially force people to buy dollars. Politically through the petrodollar and economically through their giant trade deficit. The UK is just not in as strong of a position. The American's should go ahead and enjoy their MMT but everywhere else should return to Keynesian principles.
Give me Keynes economics anyday to Monetarist policy. The "trickle down" effect has not benefited the wage earners of this country. Even if Labour grows the economy, it's about who benefits from that increase in GNP.
Thatcher refused to adopt the euro, thus giving up UK’s ability to issue its own currency. Then turned around and said that there’s no such thing as public money (government created pounds), only “tax payer money”. Thus government can run out of money”tax payer” money - as though tax payers print up The Pound 🙄 No. Government issues The Pound. A government deficit = A private sector surplus. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with private sector Pound surplus. UK is NOT like Greece. Greece does not issue the euro & can run out of euros. UK issues the Pound. The fact that commentators can’t figure out the difference is just horribly sad & actually inexcusable at this point.
Do you think having our own currency insulates us from currency issues & fiscal crises? Because it objectively does not. Historically most countries that have been in a Greek style situation had their own currencies. The euro makes these problems worse, it doesn't cause them and having our own currency doesn't protect us from them
@@afgor1088 Greece does not issue its own currency. It uses the euro & so can run out of euros. America issues its own currency. Never borrows in a currency it doesn’t control. And floats its currency. America simply is not like Greece. Can America experience other challenges? Sure. But it can not run out of dollars. Greece can run out of euros
Gentlemen, there were doubtless sensible ideas struggling to squeeze out of this nonsensical bastard of word spaghetti and rampant, bouncy thought ball. Please speak slowly and with care. Good luck.
The last 13 years have been the peak of the nightmares
imagine being a teenager and these cnts have been in power all your life. poor sods.
there's still the coming labor government
@@kanedNunable I was still in primary school when David Cameron first came into power. All through growing up, coming to consider my aspirations, it was all under the Tories. It certainly didn't help that they were in power, because I'd genuinely never thought I could really achieve what I wanted to. That I could have my own home etc. I still don't think I'll be able to have my own home for decades maybe, but we'll see.
@@adhiwicaksono6149 Some hope on the horizon, finally
This bunch of Tories have been the most corrupt in living memory even considering the corrupt Blair years!
In place of strife is one of the great lost opportunities of modern British history.
Very true. The fact is that Mrs Thatcher brought in very similar legislation in the 1980s. The fact that Labour failed to do this when Barbara Castle tried to originally introduce the legislation , well this backfired on them in the 1970s.
How ironic that Jim Callaghan was the main political force that stopped Barbara Castle's original legislation. Also the really irony was that this brought down Jim Callaghan's government in 1979.
So agree. If Barbara Castle got the legislation through parliament, the 1970s would have been more manageable
Grabbed the book for my holidays !
The UK today has full employment without a stated policy of trying to achieve full employment. Full employment, high immigration and the need for higher taxes is all due to our ageing society. This is the great driver. If Labour are going to improve the NHS and public services then they will need to raise taxes.
We've had full employment on the back of historically unprecedented low interest rates, cheap energy & goods and artificially suppressed labour costs (e.g. not meeting the cost of child rearing)
That's going away now. Unemployment hasn't been solved we just had a pause.
You call that full employment when 9 million people live in poverty despite working?
@@nettcologne9186 Yes I would. The other problem is high living costs. If you look at London you have relatively high wages but still a lot of poverty. The issue isn't wages, it's the lack of affordable homes. If you see wages suddenly going up and still have a broken housing situation then the danger is you just push up rents further for many working people. You need to fix the housing situation.
@@nettcologne9186 yes.
Full employment has nothing directly to do with the quality of employment or standard of living.
@@nettcologne9186 Full employment is absolutely not the same thing as people earning a living wage. It covers people working on a part time wage or zero hour contracts as well. Quite concerning that you appear not to understand that at all.
The UK cannot create new wealth within its economic ecosystem. That question needs pondering!!
There seems to be some juggling of statistics here. Before the election the Labour Party were portrayed as having created one and quarter million unemployed which turned out to be an inflated figure. The true figure was one million. Subsequently the method of quantifying unemployment was changed. By 1982 the unemployment rate was 3 million unemployed - three times the unenployment rate of Labour. Subsequent to that the Tories changed the unemployment assessment 33 separate times.
That is interesting but you can't have an "unemployment rate" of 3 million. Rate is a relative figure, 3 million an absolute.
Yeah I understand, but surely even as the unemployment figure officially stands at three million, at a particular moment, aren't there people going into and coming out of unemployment and therefore that provides a dynamic which can be referred to as "the rate" .
Yes, but Labour under Harold Wilson kept unemployment under 1 million. However, the structural problems within the economy, the adoption of the IMF plan caused unemployment to rise to
1, 700, 000 coupled with high inflation above 20% and daily strike action destroyed that government. But we suffered much worse under Thatcher! Unemployment was about 4 million (they changed the way you calculate the figures about twenty times). Britain's industrial base disappeared. And she did not stop the overall decline of the economy. Those were horrible years, I remember them!
Bring back the post war consensus.
Not possible.
It failed for a reason and it'd fail again.
Political aspects of full employment by a polish economist proved this a long time ago.
Capitalism creates an irreconcilable conflict between those who own the means of production and those who create true wealth. The balance has never been so tipped against wealth creators. And we need to blow away the myth that wealth is not just unpaid labour. The current economic system is so full of contradictions it can’t operate efficiently or fairly.
Any political analysis that doesn’t touch on the fact that the UK issues its own currency & can never run out if the ability to do so.
Versus, eg, the euro using countries that gave up their ability to issue their own currency.
Devaluation of the pound is not something you would want to do indefinitely. Devaluing the pound will increase inflation, government debt obligations and make the UK government less credit worthy as the value of government debt would be collapse. Liz Truss tried this, government debt tanked in value and a bunch of pensions nearly went bankrupt and it was only the BOE intervention that saved the Gilt Market from crashing and the fiscal space that had been gained by the tax rises under Johnson was spaffed away paying increased interest on government debt.
@@Jay_Johnson
You’re not getting this.
Your government issues the pounds everyone else uses to buy gilts.
Your central bank sets interest rates on your gilts.
The euro using countries on the other hand don’t own their own central bank. So rely on the good will of the ECB
@@katiecannon8186 and no-one will buy gilts if they are worthless because the interest rate is set too low. If the government(/banks) keep creating money you get inflation and that will erode living standards and disincentivise foreign investment. Don’t get me wrong the Euro only works to perpetuate existing economic inequality in the EU and I wouldn’t want the UK to adopt the euro but you overstate the utility of independent monetary policy.
@@Jay_Johnson the supply side theory of inflation has been thoroughly researched in the past 2 decades. It is not true.
@@alst4817 I'm literally a Keynesian not a monetarist, I just reject 'modern monetary theory' as I think it only applies to the US where they use their political and economic hegemony to essentially force people to buy dollars. Politically through the petrodollar and economically through their giant trade deficit. The UK is just not in as strong of a position.
The American's should go ahead and enjoy their MMT but everywhere else should return to Keynesian principles.
Give me Keynes economics anyday to Monetarist policy. The "trickle down" effect has not benefited the wage earners of this country. Even if Labour grows the economy, it's about who benefits from that increase in GNP.
If you're waiting for Labour to announce public spending I've got a bridge to sell you
Democracy = rule by international finance and the Merchant class
Evolassunglasses = highly ‘intelligent’ man
Democracy = rule by International Finance - That would explain the Peterloo Massacre, or General Pinochet and the Chicago Boys.
How does that explain the postwar, pre-Thatcher era of Capital Controls?
“…a vivid crisis’…..indeed: a toothache can be more “vivid” than prostate cancer…yet one is far more deadly than the other…
Citing examples of the trade unions in the 1970s and 1980s it appears to me that the narratives are clearly fsctually inaccurate.
Overton?! Wot's that?!
Just started Economy of British gone down poverty increased peoples can't pay Rent
How many political books have you read in the last two years?
Lil pup just took the long way to describe the ratchet effect. The Tories go further and further right and labour accept what's already been done
Two rich boys probably from private schools Oxford chattering about nothing they understand. As always.
Thatcher refused to adopt the euro, thus giving up UK’s ability to issue its own currency.
Then turned around and said that there’s no such thing as public money (government created pounds), only “tax payer money”.
Thus government can run out of money”tax payer” money - as though tax payers print up The Pound 🙄
No. Government issues The Pound.
A government deficit = A private sector surplus.
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with private sector Pound surplus.
UK is NOT like Greece.
Greece does not issue the euro & can run out of euros.
UK issues the Pound.
The fact that commentators can’t figure out the difference is just horribly sad & actually inexcusable at this point.
Do you think having our own currency insulates us from currency issues & fiscal crises?
Because it objectively does not. Historically most countries that have been in a Greek style situation had their own currencies.
The euro makes these problems worse, it doesn't cause them and having our own currency doesn't protect us from them
@@afgor1088
Greece does not issue its own currency.
It uses the euro & so can run out of euros.
America issues its own currency. Never borrows in a currency it doesn’t control. And floats its currency.
America simply is not like Greece.
Can America experience other challenges? Sure.
But it can not run out of dollars.
Greece can run out of euros
@@katiecannon8186 yeah I'm aware...
Gentlemen, there were doubtless sensible ideas struggling to squeeze out of this nonsensical bastard of word spaghetti and rampant, bouncy thought ball. Please speak slowly and with care. Good luck.
This was a waste of time 😑
Yes it not been a successful.
Hopefully he writes better than he speaks 😅