58% of UK teens think Sherlock Holmes was real. 20% say Churchill was fake.

[kentonio]

You're the one with the rose-tinted glasses - did you actually grow up during the Thatcher years...!!?

Well I ****ing did and it wasn't a pretty picture!

Yes I did, in a northern mining village no less.

Take Poll Tax as the one example that absolutely and directly affected me financially (though I think the teachers strikes of 85-87 probably damaged me far more!), the thing that finally finished her off: my then household of 3 people saw our rates quadruple from roughly £400 to over £1600 - and that's accounting for over 20 years of inflation!

So **** you and **** Thatcher!

The poll tax was a **** up, no arguments there. Then again funny that as you say it was a strike that hurt you more back then. Might want to think about that a bit.

[C0ckney]

Unions were broken down because they needed to be broken down. There's a still a significant union presence and hopefully will continue to be. They just can't plunge the country into depression if their political goals aren't met these days.

yes the tories broke the power of the organised working class, and now workers are being pushed into ever more precarious and insecure situations, while at the same time social protections are attacked. the link is obvious.

As for housing benefit, it was previously far too generous in some cases, so I'm not going to lose any sleep about that. The way it was carried out was clumsy and poorly handled in many cases, but I'm yet to hear a good explanation for why the state should be paying for multi-bedroom houses for people who don't need them. I'm all for ensuring that everyone has housing, but when the taxpayer is covering your rent you can't expect that to be a top drawer property. A vast number of people renting don't get the luxury of an ideal home either.

a better question to ask is why is the state subsudising private landlords, and thus raising rents for all, instead of providing decent housing directly for those who need it.

[Alexander's Horse]

I have been shocked by what young people don't know about history but otoh they have a different knowledge set, things I don't know, and many of them live in a kind of ahistorical society full of pop culture, nothing new about that btw.

[kentonio]

yes the tories broke the power of the organised working class, and now workers are being pushed into ever more precarious and insecure situations, while at the same time social protections are attacked. the link is obvious.

Hey, I'm all for there being a fair balance there, but at the time it had tipped wildly out of kilter, and resetting it needed radical action. Now it's swung too far the other way, and needs rebalancing once again. This is exactly why we need a Labour party that isn't just Tory-lite, but I'm damned if I can see where it's going to come from.

It's worth remembering though that it wasn't Thatcher who first tried to rein in the power of the unions, it had been tried with various degrees of strength leading up to that point, and each attempt had failed. The breaking of the unions was a culmination of a long series of events where union bosses had flexed their muscles increasingly often and held back the country in the process. It's also very worth remembering that unions do not equal all working class people.

Obviously anecdotal evidence means next to nothing, so I present this to you purely as a story. Back in the seventies my dad worked for a while as a mechanic at the mines. At the time those working above ground were paid considerably less than those beneath the surface (for obvious reasons). It's worth remembering btw that the below surface workers were making wages far above your standard working class job at the time. At one round of pay negotiations the surface workers were offered a decent pay increase to reflect their performance and bring wages a little more in line with the other workers. The local NUM refused to allow the pay rise unless the same pay rise was also given to the below surface workers, who were already being payed well above average and which would have been completely uneconomical to hand over. As a result a ton of working men lost out on a pay rise, because the union bosses cared more about trying to squeeze everything they could out of the company than they did about the actual workers they were supposed to be representing.

That kind of thing was not in any way rare, and an awful lot of the working men of the time wanted nothing to do with the unions who had become more interested in playing politics at both local and national levels than they were in looking after the interests of the men in the factories and mines. If you want a culprit for what broke the unions, you need look no further than the major union bosses who forgot what their job was supposed to be, tried to hold the country to ransom and brought down an inevitable retribution as a result.

a better question to ask is why is the state subsudising private landlords, and thus raising rents for all, instead of providing decent housing directly for those who need it.

The idea was to get people out of the mindset of 'council house for life' and aspiring to own property and move themselves up on the economic ladder. It was one of the things I'm most proud of the Tory party for. Of course major social engineering requires decades of supporting follow up, and as normal with government we never got it.

I do agree that rent is way out of control, but I think it's mainly down to people being given low deposit mortgages for buy to rent properties, which caused the housing market to soar. I suppose you could track that back to the move away from council properties to private renting, but I think it'd be more productive to legislate caps on buy to rent to enable people to actually afford to get on the housing ladder in the first place. Move a ton of those people from the renting market who really should be afford to afford to start buying (if the market wasn't so insane), and I think you'll see a lot of easing throughout the system.

[C0ckney]

Hey, I'm all for there being a fair balance there, but at the time it had tipped wildly out of kilter, and resetting it needed radical action. Now it's swung too far the other way, and needs rebalancing once again. This is exactly why we need a Labour party that isn't just Tory-lite, but I'm damned if I can see where it's going to come from.

It's worth remembering though that it wasn't Thatcher who first tried to rein in the power of the unions, it had been tried with various degrees of strength leading up to that point, and each attempt had failed. The breaking of the unions was a culmination of a long series of events where union bosses had flexed their muscles increasingly often and held back the country in the process. It's also very worth remembering that unions do not equal all working class people.

well the first paragraph is not something we're likely to agree on, but i will say that the changes in the labour party are partly a result of the breaking of the unions; of course they're also partly a result of the electoral which means that only a small percentage of seats matter and of the illusory nature of representative democracy itself, but that's another debate. although on the other hand, i've argued before on this forum that the labour party's socialism was always more imaginary than real and now even the imaginary part has gone. at least now, people can see it for what it really is and this may allow space for new forces, that challenge the three party consensus, to emerge.

i'm not sure what you mean by holding the country back (or even why, if such a thing could be proven, it would matter). however i will say that in general terms, the best, and really only practical way, for the working class to gain the political power necessary to improve their situation is to organise and combine their efforts, and the usual way to do this is through unions. if the working classes are prevented from organising, for example by law, or discouraged from doing so, their position will worsen, and this is in fact what has happened in the UK. we see an insecure and poorly paid workforce, with fewer rights and this is combined with a decline in working class representation in government.

The idea was to get people out of the mindset of 'council house for life' and aspiring to own property and move themselves up on the economic ladder. It was one of the things I'm most proud of the Tory party for. Of course major social engineering requires decades of supporting follow up, and as normal with government we never got it.

the idea behind this was an interesting one. it was taken, believe it or not, from the communist party, who came up with the measure as a means of transferring wealth from mostly middle class taxpayers to the working classes. however there were several problems. it order to work it had to be a continuous process: build council houses, sell them to their tenants at a discount, build more. of course this wasn't done and it meant that the houses were sold off and few to none new ones built, meaning that there weren't and aren't enough council houses today. there were also other effects, the idea of mixed communities where people in a wide range of circumstances would live together was more or less abandoned and council housing became seen as a repository for those at the bottom society. it pushed many vulnerable people into private rented accommodation meaning that the state now subsidises private landlords.

low wages and high rents mean that many of the working class cannot afford to house themselves and so there is a double subsidy from government (i.e. us): first to low paying employers in the form of tax credits and second to private landlords in the form of housing benefit. it's incredible that these very obvious subsides to the rich have been spun, by politicians and the right wing media, in recent years as handouts to workers.

I do agree that rent is way out of control, but I think it's mainly down to people being given low deposit mortgages for buy to rent properties, which caused the housing market to soar. I suppose you could track that back to the move away from council properties to private renting, but I think it'd be more productive to legislate caps on buy to rent to enable people to actually afford to get on the housing ladder in the first place. Move a ton of those people from the renting market who really should be afford to afford to start buying (if the market wasn't so insane), and I think you'll see a lot of easing throughout the system.

well of course i would say that the solution is to abolish private property but we're not going to find much agreement there . in the context of the present system i think the solution is a land value tax combined with a large scale house building programme. the problem is a lack of supply, and measures which do not address that (see for example every measure that has been tried for the last 20 years) will fail, and often make the situation worse.

[kentonio]

I'm not sure what you mean by holding the country back (or even why, if such a thing could be proven, it would matter). however i will say that in general terms, the best, and really only practical way, for the working class to gain the political power necessary to improve their situation is to organise and combine their efforts, and the usual way to do this is through unions. if the working classes are prevented from organising, for example by law, or discouraged from doing so, their position will worsen, and this is in fact what has happened in the UK. we see an insecure and poorly paid workforce, with fewer rights and this is combined with a decline in working class representation in government.

True. Yet despite it being a problem we need to address, I think it's hard to argue against people now being far better off than they were in the seventies. The percentage of income spent on food for instance in rising now, but its still far lower than it was back then, and disposable income in general is far higher.

the idea behind this was an interesting one. it was taken, believe it or not, from the communist party, who came up with the measure as a means of transferring wealth from mostly middle class taxpayers to the working classes. however there were several problems. it order to work it had to be a continuous process: build council houses, sell them to their tenants at a discount, build more. of course this wasn't done and it meant that the houses were sold off and few to none new ones built, meaning that there weren't and aren't enough council houses today.

I'd never heard of the communist link before, very interesting. As you say though, it needed the follow up and the follow up never happened. I just don't fault the initial attempt because of the later failure (by both parties).

there were also other effects, the idea of mixed communities where people in a wide range of circumstances would live together was more or less abandoned and council housing became seen as a repository for those at the bottom society.

Because that kind of clear communist thinking never does that well when it comes up against the realities of how people want to live. People generally congregate with those of similar beliefs, tastes and incomes. Kind of sad, but true all the same.

well of course i would say that the solution is to abolish private property but we're not going to find much agreement there . in the context of the present system i think the solution is a land value tax combined with a large scale house building programme. the problem is a lack of supply, and measures which do not address that (see for example every measure that has been tried for the last 20 years) will fail, and often make the situation worse.

How would the land value tax work as a way of really affecting buy to renters though without hurting normal house owners? As for large scale building, that's great but unless you stop the BTR crowd buying them up, it's just going to exacerbate the situation.

As for scrapping private property, yeah I think you might struggle with that one.

That said however, when it comes to housing there's going to be a ceiling somewhere. Eventually you run out of space to build and the bulk of the money collects in the hands of those who got in early. Maybe it's centuries away but somewhere there's going to come a really unhappy wall we run into.

[pchang]

Stop having kids. Eventually, far fewer teens who don't know history. Also helps with the housing demand problem too.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

True. Yet despite it being a problem we need to address, I think it's hard to argue against people now being far better off than they were in the seventies. The percentage of income spent on food for instance in rising now, but its still far lower than it was back then, and disposable income in general is far higher.



I'd never heard of the communist link before, very interesting. As you say though, it needed the follow up and the follow up never happened. I just don't fault the initial attempt because of the later failure (by both parties).



Because that kind of clear communist thinking never does that well when it comes up against the realities of how people want to live. People generally congregate with those of similar beliefs, tastes and incomes. Kind of sad, but true all the same.

Not necessarily true, it is more true in anglo-saxon environment. To start with you have to have a class system, which is still alive and well in the UK, and it naturally grows from there. It is a deeper social/cultural issue in UK, but is not necessarily the only outcome.

How would the land value tax work as a way of really affecting buy to renters though without hurting normal house owners? As for large scale building, that's great but unless you stop the BTR crowd buying them up, it's just going to exacerbate the situation.

As for scrapping private property, yeah I think you might struggle with that one.

That said however, when it comes to housing there's going to be a ceiling somewhere. Eventually you run out of space to build and the bulk of the money collects in the hands of those who got in early. Maybe it's centuries away but somewhere there's going to come a really unhappy wall we run into.

The solution for UK is in the way you build. In principle you do not need a lot of space to house a lot of people, however the quality of housing will suffer due to cultural norms. If UK had similar housing like urban Japan, you would have plenty of space, but you do not have the cultural norms in place which would keep people content in such environment. One aspect of it is general emphasis on "individual" in anglo-saxon culture makes people more discontent in shared spaces, thus leading to deterioration in such areas, frequently making them into low cost, low level areas. It does not need to be that way and you do not need to have rows of houses carpeting an area so that "middle" class and up can be satisfied.

Ultimately the issues are political, and as long as the upper class/wealthy continue to dictate the politics, the position of working class (majority) will deteriorate. While the conditions have improved in UK vs the 70's in many ways, in many others they are far below what was achieved in other more equitable societies, ie Nordics, Benelux, even Germany.

[kentonio]

Not necessarily true, it is more true in anglo-saxon environment. To start with you have to have a class system, which is still alive and well in the UK, and it naturally grows from there. It is a deeper social/cultural issue in UK, but is not necessarily the only outcome.

The famed class system in the UK has largely evaporated. There's still an upper class (though much reduced) but the old working class/middle class divisions are so blurred now as to be barely existent.

[C0ckney]

True. Yet despite it being a problem we need to address, I think it's hard to argue against people now being far better off than they were in the seventies. The percentage of income spent on food for instance in rising now, but its still far lower than it was back then, and disposable income in general is far higher.

that's all true, but it doesn't really address the point. people are better off now because of technological change and the fact that they produce more (partly as a result of technological change), yet in relative terms they (workers) receive less. we can look at it another way and say that although the wealth of society has increased dramatically, there are still a great number of workers one pay day away from destitution. this is because of a combination of low wages, a lack of job security, high rents and an increasingly punitive social security system. an effect of this is that these insecure and worried workers are less likely to organise and to take positive or radical action to improve their situation.

Because that kind of clear communist thinking never does that well when it comes up against the realities of how people want to live. People generally congregate with those of similar beliefs, tastes and incomes. Kind of sad, but true all the same.

but it did work, and quite well, from the end of the second world war until the eighties.

How would the land value tax work as a way of really affecting buy to renters though without hurting normal house owners? As for large scale building, that's great but unless you stop the BTR crowd buying them up, it's just going to exacerbate the situation.

a land value tax (as per henry george) would replace existing taxation on labour and capital. it would mean a more efficient land market and encourage building.

As for scrapping private property, yeah I think you might struggle with that one.

That said however, when it comes to housing there's going to be a ceiling somewhere. Eventually you run out of space to build and the bulk of the money collects in the hands of those who got in early. Maybe it's centuries away but somewhere there's going to come a really unhappy wall we run into.

doesn't it just. it's astonishing how much of england is in the hands of the descendants of the original normal conquerers. a little (by which i mean mass, popular) expropriation would go a long way to resolving a number of land problems in the UK.

[molly bloom]

Make your mind up, either Britain was worse before or better before (or the same before). Because the Britain in the seventies I know was a absolute ****hole.

That's your opinion, nothing more.

You mean she didn't come in and immediately fix all problems in the country overnight?

You're the one who thinks unsupported hyperbolic statements stand in for facts- they don't.

Obviously anecdotal evidence means next to nothing

Then stop relying on it.

[molly bloom]

[QUOTE=kentonio;6343037]The famed class system in the UK has largely evaporated. QUOTE]

Did somebody tell the current Tory Party ? Because that seems to have passed them by.

[Alexander's Horse]

a lot passes them by

[kentonio]

**** off Mobius.

[Bereta_Eder]

I wonder what percentage of Croatian teens think Ustaše was a pop group.

(sorry onefoot but that was a good one)