FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > More trouble for the chancellor
More trouble for the chancellor
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Government borrowing has increased again. Borrowing increased to £20.7bn in June. £3.6bn more than the treasury experts predicted; that’s a 15% miscalculation Bond yields have fallen, food inflation +5.2%, rents +6.7%. Rising unemployment. More businesses closing than opening. Economic growth fallen Will an interest rate cut and more tax rises save the day? " No. Labour haven’t got a clue what they are doing when it comes to business and the economy. Not surprising given the dearth of relevant experience in the government. I’m always surprised that every day we get an “unexpected” set of worsening economic data from the “experts” whereas pretty much every man and woman in the street could have forecast exactly what was coming. Expect another four years of the same. Every day another scramble for some more of someone else’s cash to splurge on Labour’s core vote. The idea of expanding the economy to increase government receipts is beyond them. It just goes totally against their core tax and spend ideology. Totally ponderous. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Doesn't help the press is constantly so negative. Go out spend your cash and whatever you have left invest. We need to switch our mindset conservatives were terrible labour is trying to help." So the state of the economy is the media’s fault? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Doesn't help the press is constantly so negative. Go out spend your cash and whatever you have left invest. We need to switch our mindset conservatives were terrible labour is trying to help. So the state of the economy is the media’s fault?" The mood of country can be down to constant negativity from headlines | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Doesn't help the press is constantly so negative. Go out spend your cash and whatever you have left invest. We need to switch our mindset conservatives were terrible labour is trying to help. So the state of the economy is the media’s fault? The mood of country can be down to constant negativity from headlines " So the media should be cheerleaders for a hopeless government? Sounds like North Korea. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hey, if things continue this way we could end up with the economic miracle that was Thatcherism when inflation was 17%, unemployment 11% and interest rates 16%." Those figures were Labour’s legacy. Thatcher cleaned up the mess with tough decisions and laid the groundwork for 15+ years of uninterrupted growth. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Doesn't help the press is constantly so negative. Go out spend your cash and whatever you have left invest. We need to switch our mindset conservatives were terrible labour is trying to help. So the state of the economy is the media’s fault? The mood of country can be down to constant negativity from headlines So the media should be cheerleaders for a hopeless government? Sounds like North Korea." They did with Johnson and Truss even though that was against the 99% interest | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hey, if things continue this way we could end up with the economic miracle that was Thatcherism when inflation was 17%, unemployment 11% and interest rates 16%. Those figures were Labour’s legacy. Thatcher cleaned up the mess with tough decisions and laid the groundwork for 15+ years of uninterrupted growth. " No labour have always come in to terrible inheritance left by every conservative and then get the blame | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Those figures were Labour’s legacy. Thatcher cleaned up the mess with tough decisions and laid the groundwork for 15+ years of uninterrupted growth." Go look at the actual data on inflation, unemployment and interest rates - then come back. Although I will concede that there was a massive spike following the Yom Kippur War that skewed the inflation numbers a bit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Labour one month in: it’s Sunak's fault Labour one year in: it’s Thatcher's fault. I guess Disraeli will be getting it next." Cawblem, like Cameron didn't blame the global financial crash on Gordon brown. Who is globally renowned for saving the banks | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Labour one month in: it’s Sunak's fault Labour one year in: it’s Thatcher's fault. I guess Disraeli will be getting it next." I don't think anybody is blaming Thatcher for what has happened recently but Thatcher supporters always blame the disaster that she presided over on Labour. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Those figures were Labour’s legacy. Thatcher cleaned up the mess with tough decisions and laid the groundwork for 15+ years of uninterrupted growth. Go look at the actual data on inflation, unemployment and interest rates - then come back. Although I will concede that there was a massive spike following the Yom Kippur War that skewed the inflation numbers a bit. " The economy was tanked and tanking, the conservatives arriving doesn't cancel the direction of travel overnight. The figures you are stating were provided by the labour party who had brought the country to its knees. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The reality in front of us is that Britain borrowed £148bn last year and £105bn or almost three-quarters of that increase in our national debt went on interest payments on debt previously incurred. £78 billion more than forecast. The UK's public finances resemble a Ponzi scheme. When challenged about the state of our public finances, Reeves and Keir Starmer cite crowd-pleasing nonsense about “school breakfast clubs” and “world class public services”. As if it’s fine to drive the UK into bankruptcy, provoking a full-on bail-out and all the resulting financial and economic chaos because the money is being spent under virtue-signalling headings ! In short we are fucked. Even if we had elected a genuinely strong government last year with a genius Chancellor we would have been up against it. We have elected muppets who I wouldn't trust to run a corner shop. " You telling me were fucked on 43 billion? Get a grip!! Go out and enjoy yourself | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I see another patriot Screaming from another country" True patriots never holiday abroad?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I live in the UK . Not planning to leave as my business is there. Genuinely worried about the future " Well, well, almost as if you can't move wealth | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I see another patriot Screaming from another country True patriots never holiday abroad? "Apparently we moved to Spain and nobody told us lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I see another patriot Screaming from another country True patriots never holiday abroad?
Apparently we moved to Spain and nobody told us lol"You mean you haven't??? Blimey | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The economy was tanked and tanking, the conservatives arriving doesn't cancel the direction of travel overnight. The figures you are stating were provided by the labour party who had brought the country to its knees." I've got the year by year data in front of me. It's not from the Labour party. It's clear to me that you can't be bothered to look up the data. You've just swallowed the whole Thatcher was an economic genius BS and been too lazy to check if it's actually true. Thatcher came to power in May 1979. In 1978 inflation was 8.26%. By 1980 it was 17.97%. In 1978 unemployment was 5.4%. By 1984 it was 11.9%. In 1978 interest rates were 9%. In 1980 they were 16% and were still over 13% when she left office. Sadly people on the right have built up a myth about Thatcher and most people have just blindly gone along with it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hey, if things continue this way we could end up with the economic miracle that was Thatcherism when inflation was 17%, unemployment 11% and interest rates 16%. Those figures were Labour’s legacy. Thatcher cleaned up the mess with tough decisions and laid the groundwork for 15+ years of uninterrupted growth. " 😂😂😂 you're like a cultist with that bolox | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The economy was tanked and tanking, the conservatives arriving doesn't cancel the direction of travel overnight. The figures you are stating were provided by the labour party who had brought the country to its knees. I've got the year by year data in front of me. It's not from the Labour party. It's clear to me that you can't be bothered to look up the data. You've just swallowed the whole Thatcher was an economic genius BS and been too lazy to check if it's actually true. Thatcher came to power in May 1979. In 1978 inflation was 8.26%. By 1980 it was 17.97%. In 1978 unemployment was 5.4%. By 1984 it was 11.9%. In 1978 interest rates were 9%. In 1980 they were 16% and were still over 13% when she left office. Sadly people on the right have built up a myth about Thatcher and most people have just blindly gone along with it. " You’ve just proved my point, Thatcher inherited the economy in 1979, and the situation worsened before it improved, because of the inherited problems she set out to fix. Inflation was around 8% in 1978 but that was after years of double digit inflation under Labour, reaching over 24% in 1975. Interest rates and inflation rose again in 1980 because she took a grip of monetary policy to crush inflation. That was deliberate and it worked. Unemployment rose because loss making state industries were no longer artificially propped up. It was painful but absolutely necessary to move forward from the mess the country was in, the nickname sick man of Europe wasn't a compliment during the 70's. It was an embarrassing state to be in, being bailed out by the IMF, unions destroying the infrastructure with constant industrial action etc etc... Inflation was brought under control, the UK economy entered 15+ years of sustained growth, starting mid-1980s. You have figures but not the back story to fully understand how those figures came about, and how they would need to get worse before they could get better under a rigid plan that delivered. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Enjoy the French debt while we the actual patriots try to figure out Britain " You've not a clue. Not only can you not read but you're economically illiterate. I'm on holiday in France. I pay my taxes in the UK. I resent this as this govt and other idiot governments of the last 30 years waste much of this money on the idle , on paying back debt, the wasteful NHS, net zero bullshit, 3rd world immigrants, foreign wars and a million other useless pet projects which sink this country further into the mire. You talk about Thatcher. She did many things wrong as do all Prime Ministers. She did however turn this country round so it became rich and successful. She thought long term and didn't care what the media said, she stuck to her guns and guess what: her economics worked in the long term. So much so that by 1997 the country had cleared its national debt. Labour and to a lesser extent the fake pink conservatives under Cameron, May and Boris undid all that. My God this country needs her back now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You have figures but not the back story to fully understand how those figures came about, and how they would need to get worse before they could get better under a rigid plan that delivered." ROFL | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hey, if things continue this way we could end up with the economic miracle that was Thatcherism when inflation was 17%, unemployment 11% and interest rates 16%. Those figures were Labour’s legacy. Thatcher cleaned up the mess with tough decisions and laid the groundwork for 15+ years of uninterrupted growth. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The economy was tanked and tanking, the conservatives arriving doesn't cancel the direction of travel overnight. The figures you are stating were provided by the labour party who had brought the country to its knees. I've got the year by year data in front of me. It's not from the Labour party. It's clear to me that you can't be bothered to look up the data. You've just swallowed the whole Thatcher was an economic genius BS and been too lazy to check if it's actually true. Thatcher came to power in May 1979. In 1978 inflation was 8.26%. By 1980 it was 17.97%. In 1978 unemployment was 5.4%. By 1984 it was 11.9%. In 1978 interest rates were 9%. In 1980 they were 16% and were still over 13% when she left office. Sadly people on the right have built up a myth about Thatcher and most people have just blindly gone along with it. You’ve just proved my point, Thatcher inherited the economy in 1979, and the situation worsened before it improved, because of the inherited problems she set out to fix. Inflation was around 8% in 1978 but that was after years of double digit inflation under Labour, reaching over 24% in 1975. Interest rates and inflation rose again in 1980 because she took a grip of monetary policy to crush inflation. That was deliberate and it worked. Unemployment rose because loss making state industries were no longer artificially propped up. It was painful but absolutely necessary to move forward from the mess the country was in, the nickname sick man of Europe wasn't a compliment during the 70's. It was an embarrassing state to be in, being bailed out by the IMF, unions destroying the infrastructure with constant industrial action etc etc... Inflation was brought under control, the UK economy entered 15+ years of sustained growth, starting mid-1980s. You have figures but not the back story to fully understand how those figures came about, and how they would need to get worse before they could get better under a rigid plan that delivered. " Never laughed so much 😂 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The economy was tanked and tanking, the conservatives arriving doesn't cancel the direction of travel overnight. The figures you are stating were provided by the labour party who had brought the country to its knees. I've got the year by year data in front of me. It's not from the Labour party. It's clear to me that you can't be bothered to look up the data. You've just swallowed the whole Thatcher was an economic genius BS and been too lazy to check if it's actually true. Thatcher came to power in May 1979. In 1978 inflation was 8.26%. By 1980 it was 17.97%. In 1978 unemployment was 5.4%. By 1984 it was 11.9%. In 1978 interest rates were 9%. In 1980 they were 16% and were still over 13% when she left office. Sadly people on the right have built up a myth about Thatcher and most people have just blindly gone along with it. You’ve just proved my point, Thatcher inherited the economy in 1979, and the situation worsened before it improved, because of the inherited problems she set out to fix. Inflation was around 8% in 1978 but that was after years of double digit inflation under Labour, reaching over 24% in 1975. Interest rates and inflation rose again in 1980 because she took a grip of monetary policy to crush inflation. That was deliberate and it worked. Unemployment rose because loss making state industries were no longer artificially propped up. It was painful but absolutely necessary to move forward from the mess the country was in, the nickname sick man of Europe wasn't a compliment during the 70's. It was an embarrassing state to be in, being bailed out by the IMF, unions destroying the infrastructure with constant industrial action etc etc... Inflation was brought under control, the UK economy entered 15+ years of sustained growth, starting mid-1980s. You have figures but not the back story to fully understand how those figures came about, and how they would need to get worse before they could get better under a rigid plan that delivered. Never laughed so much 😂" I can imagine, economics under the guidance of the grifter Gary Stevenson tends to do that to people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I can imagine, economics under the guidance of the grifter Gary Stevenson tends to do that to people. " Grifter? What’s the grift? Bit of strange take | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I can imagine, economics under the guidance of the grifter Gary Stevenson tends to do that to people. Grifter? What’s the grift? Bit of strange take" You need to work this out yourself, or it will be back and forth on opinion not fact. However, trust me he is making ££'s out of his influence and taking people on a journey that delivers nothing but soundbites and somewhere to hang the anger. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You talk about Thatcher. She did many things wrong as do all Prime Ministers. She did however turn this country round so it became rich and successful. She thought long term and didn't care what the media said, she stuck to her guns and guess what: her economics worked in the long term. So much so that by 1997 the country had cleared its national debt. Labour and to a lesser extent the fake pink conservatives under Cameron, May and Boris undid all that. My God this country needs her back now." National debt has risen virtually every year. In 1978 it was £79 billion. Under Thatcher it went up to £192 billion. By 1997 it was £350 billion. Yes, we are in a lot of debt and it keeps going up but please stop pretending that Thatcher did amazing things that she didn't do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I can imagine, economics under the guidance of the grifter Gary Stevenson tends to do that to people. Grifter? What’s the grift? Bit of strange take You need to work this out yourself, or it will be back and forth on opinion not fact. However, trust me he is making ££'s out of his influence and taking people on a journey that delivers nothing but soundbites and somewhere to hang the anger. " How can a millionaire who is asking for the government to increase taxes on millionaires be on some grift? This is why I can't take your ever devout belief in Margaret Thatcher seriously. It's just selection bias and it's you who needs to work out you're in a cult | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am, in France , at a swingers resort. Loving it. I'd advise anyone with equity to invest in tangible, safe assets not linked to the UK . The sobering reality is this.. A thousand minutes ago was yesterday. A million minutes ago was 2023. A billion minutes ago was 123 AD. The wheel barrow was invented. A trillion minutes ago the land masses of America, Europe and Africa were joined and had dinosaurs on them. The UK is £2.8 *trillion* in debt" "525,600 minutes" Season's of Love from rent how do measure a year | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You talk about Thatcher. She did many things wrong as do all Prime Ministers. She did however turn this country round so it became rich and successful. She thought long term and didn't care what the media said, she stuck to her guns and guess what: her economics worked in the long term. So much so that by 1997 the country had cleared its national debt. Labour and to a lesser extent the fake pink conservatives under Cameron, May and Boris undid all that. My God this country needs her back now. National debt has risen virtually every year. In 1978 it was £79 billion. Under Thatcher it went up to £192 billion. By 1997 it was £350 billion. Yes, we are in a lot of debt and it keeps going up but please stop pretending that Thatcher did amazing things that she didn't do. " Thatherism is a cult. Right leaning politics like to use it as some bastion of economic success, though it was anything but that😂 a complete failure for the people of the UK, just like every other twat since. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"More good news the IFS is saying the state pension age could increase to 69 by 2049, and age 74 by 2069; potentially a working lifetime of 56 years. Won’t be long before mortgages may need to be extended to this period. 84% of mortgages on the market now have a maximum term of 40 years. And how will money purchase auto enrolment work out for people. I guess every generation has had its problems but it does now look like a race to the bottom " By that stage everyone should have enough of a private or workplace pension and not depend on the state pension anyway. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thatherism is a cult. Right leaning politics like to use it as some bastion of economic success, though it was anything but that😂 a complete failure for the people of the UK, just like every other twat since." I used to have a lot of time for moderate Tories. The so-called wets and One Nation types. I didn't agree with them on many things but they seemed to be honest, rational and genuinely interested is making the UK a better place for everyone. Unfortunately they seem to have pretty much disappeared. In these old days there were also dry Tories, people who were big fans of Thatcher. I had far less in common with them but at least they had specific well thought out things they admired about her. I might disagree with them but they were still sane. Now we seem to have a lot of Thatcher worshippers who aren't interested in facts or figures or any kind of nuance. They seem to believe she was totally fantastic as a matter of pure faith. It's like the MAGA thing. Indeed it seems like those who adore Thatcher also adore Trump. It's weird. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thatherism is a cult. Right leaning politics like to use it as some bastion of economic success, though it was anything but that😂 a complete failure for the people of the UK, just like every other twat since. I used to have a lot of time for moderate Tories. The so-called wets and One Nation types. I didn't agree with them on many things but they seemed to be honest, rational and genuinely interested is making the UK a better place for everyone. Unfortunately they seem to have pretty much disappeared. In these old days there were also dry Tories, people who were big fans of Thatcher. I had far less in common with them but at least they had specific well thought out things they admired about her. I might disagree with them but they were still sane. Now we seem to have a lot of Thatcher worshippers who aren't interested in facts or figures or any kind of nuance. They seem to believe she was totally fantastic as a matter of pure faith. It's like the MAGA thing. Indeed it seems like those who adore Thatcher also adore Trump. It's weird. " Probably not as weird as Leftists going on about Thatcher decades after she left office. Tbh I never actually hear conservatives talk about Thatcher. The only people I ever hear droning on endlessly about her are Leftists. At the moment it’s obviously just a distraction technique. The thread was actually about the latest grim economic news. But the thread was rapidly hijacked by Leftists desperate to talk about anything else. Rational person: “the latest fiscal data doesn’t look good”. Leftists: “Thatcher”! It’s almost like nothing has happened since 1991 and there haven’t been any Labour governments since. It’s sad that so many Leftists are stuck in the past. The country has problems now and it needs a government focused on the present. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's interesting that Farage seems to be pushing for the retirement age to go up at an even faster rate. I'm not sure how this will go down with Reforn voters." An ageing population, far less people in final salary schemes, and more renters. Reduced health, increasing obesity. Shortage of homes suitable for older people Equity release is the fastest growing sector in the mortgage industry, I read 8% year on year growth. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s sad that so many Leftists are stuck in the past. The country has problems now and it needs a government focused on the present." Scratch a Tory and they scream Thatcher. This thread is saying things are terrible now and going to get worse. My reposté was yeah, it might even get as bad as it was under Thatcher when inflation was 17.9%, unemployment was 11.9% and the interest rate was 16%. You can now go back to slagging off the current government because inflation is 3.6%, unemploment is 4.7% and the interest rate is 4.25%. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I can imagine, economics under the guidance of the grifter Gary Stevenson tends to do that to people. Grifter? What’s the grift? Bit of strange take You need to work this out yourself, or it will be back and forth on opinion not fact. However, trust me he is making ££'s out of his influence and taking people on a journey that delivers nothing but soundbites and somewhere to hang the anger. How can a millionaire who is asking for the government to increase taxes on millionaires be on some grift? This is why I can't take your ever devout belief in Margaret Thatcher seriously. It's just selection bias and it's you who needs to work out you're in a cult" Unbelievable 
You can't see the grift can you, the message hits the right notes for you I guess. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s sad that so many Leftists are stuck in the past. The country has problems now and it needs a government focused on the present. Scratch a Tory and they scream Thatcher. This thread is saying things are terrible now and going to get worse. My reposté was yeah, it might even get as bad as it was under Thatcher when inflation was 17.9%, unemployment was 11.9% and the interest rate was 16%. You can now go back to slagging off the current government because inflation is 3.6%, unemploment is 4.7% and the interest rate is 4.25%. " I was taught early on to always have a rough idea of what the answer should be before trusting the calculator. Sanity check it before you commit. I like to think that advice is still worth passing on today, especially since the use of AI. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" it might even get as bad as it was under Thatcher when inflation was 17.9%, unemployment was 11.9% and the interest rate was 16%. You can now go back to slagging off the current government because inflation is 3.6%, unemploment is 4.7% and the interest rate is 4.25%. " Boris Johnson years were better, in 2020, inflation was 0.9%, unemployment 4.6%, interest rates 0.1% and free furlough money Why did he get such a bad wrap and where has it all gone wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s sad that so many Leftists are stuck in the past. The country has problems now and it needs a government focused on the present. Scratch a Tory and they scream Thatcher. This thread is saying things are terrible now and going to get worse. My reposté was yeah, it might even get as bad as it was under Thatcher when inflation was 17.9%, unemployment was 11.9% and the interest rate was 16%. You can now go back to slagging off the current government because inflation is 3.6%, unemploment is 4.7% and the interest rate is 4.25%. " You forgot the property crash in september 1989 when property prices dropped my half with lots of repossessions due to interest so high. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s sad that so many Leftists are stuck in the past. The country has problems now and it needs a government focused on the present. Scratch a Tory and they scream Thatcher. This thread is saying things are terrible now and going to get worse. My reposté was yeah, it might even get as bad as it was under Thatcher when inflation was 17.9%, unemployment was 11.9% and the interest rate was 16%. You can now go back to slagging off the current government because inflation is 3.6%, unemploment is 4.7% and the interest rate is 4.25%. " You have selective memory failure. Under Wilson-Callaghan, inflation peaked at 25.2% while interest rates were never in single digits and peaked at 17%. This was the government that had to go cap in hand to the IMF in 1976 and by 1979 I remember walking down Smithdown Road in Liverpool past the pickets outside the cemetery who prevented bodies being buried for weeks. Yeah right on comrade. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s sad that so many Leftists are stuck in the past. The country has problems now and it needs a government focused on the present. Scratch a Tory and they scream Thatcher. This thread is saying things are terrible now and going to get worse. My reposté was yeah, it might even get as bad as it was under Thatcher when inflation was 17.9%, unemployment was 11.9% and the interest rate was 16%. You can now go back to slagging off the current government because inflation is 3.6%, unemploment is 4.7% and the interest rate is 4.25%. You have selective memory failure. Under Wilson-Callaghan, inflation peaked at 25.2% while interest rates were never in single digits and peaked at 17%. This was the government that had to go cap in hand to the IMF in 1976 and by 1979 I remember walking down Smithdown Road in Liverpool past the pickets outside the cemetery who prevented bodies being buried for weeks. Yeah right on comrade. " And basic rate income tax at 35%. Imagine that now. Higher rate investment taxes were up to 83%. Part of excess over £4,500 Higher rate The first £500 40 per cent. The next £1,000 45 per cent. The next £1,000 50 per cent. The next £1,000 55 per cent. The next £2,000 60 per cent. The next £2,000 65 per cent. The next £3,000 70 per cent. The next £5,000 75 per cent. The remainder 83 per cent. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s sad that so many Leftists are stuck in the past. The country has problems now and it needs a government focused on the present. Scratch a Tory and they scream Thatcher. This thread is saying things are terrible now and going to get worse. My reposté was yeah, it might even get as bad as it was under Thatcher when inflation was 17.9%, unemployment was 11.9% and the interest rate was 16%. You can now go back to slagging off the current government because inflation is 3.6%, unemploment is 4.7% and the interest rate is 4.25%. You forgot the property crash in september 1989 when property prices dropped my half with lots of repossessions due to interest so high. " Property prices dropped on average 20%, with high drop areas peaking at about 35% in the period 89-91 so nowhere near a drop of a half. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You have selective memory failure. Under Wilson-Callaghan, inflation peaked at 25.2% while interest rates were never in single digits and peaked at 17%. This was the government that had to go cap in hand to the IMF in 1976 and by 1979 I remember walking down Smithdown Road in Liverpool past the pickets outside the cemetery who prevented bodies being buried for weeks. Yeah right on comrade." OK let's look back at the years prior to Thatcher's "economic miracle". Interest rates peaked at 15% in Oct 76 and then fell to 5% a year later then they went up again and were 12% when Thatcher came to power in May 1979. By November that year they were 17%. UK inflation between 1960 and 1972 was in the range 1% to 7% and then the Yom Kippur War happened. Younger readers might want to look up the 1973 Yom Kippur Oil Crisis to understand what happened to the world-wide economy then. So inflation rocketed to 24.21% in 1975. If you go way back up this thread you will see that I said "Although I will concede that there was a massive spike following the Yom Kippur War that skewed the inflation numbers a bit." Anyway, under the Wilson and Callaghan Labour governments inflation had dropped right back down to 8.26% by 1978. Then Thatcher got in and inflation more than doubled to 17.97%. Unemployment in 1970 was 3.4% but had risen to 5.3% by the end of the Callaghan government. Then Thatcher got in and unemployment more than doubled to 11.9%. UK national debt was £79 billion at the end of the Callaghan government. Then Thatcher got in and debt more than doubled to £192 billion. Can you see the pattern? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And basic rate income tax at 35%. Imagine that now. Higher rate investment taxes were up to 83%. Part of excess over £4,500 Higher rate The first £500 40 per cent. The next £1,000 45 per cent. The next £1,000 50 per cent. The next £1,000 55 per cent. The next £2,000 60 per cent. The next £2,000 65 per cent. The next £3,000 70 per cent. The next £5,000 75 per cent. The remainder 83 per cent." Average adult male wages in 1978 were £82 a week. No regular worker paid those tax rates. They did however pay VAT. Standard rate VAT was 8% in 1978. Then Thatcher got in and VAT went up to 15%. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And basic rate income tax at 35%. Imagine that now. Higher rate investment taxes were up to 83%. Part of excess over £4,500 Higher rate The first £500 40 per cent. The next £1,000 45 per cent. The next £1,000 50 per cent. The next £1,000 55 per cent. The next £2,000 60 per cent. The next £2,000 65 per cent. The next £3,000 70 per cent. The next £5,000 75 per cent. The remainder 83 per cent. Average adult male wages in 1978 were £82 a week. No regular worker paid those tax rates. They did however pay VAT. Standard rate VAT was 8% in 1978. Then Thatcher got in and VAT went up to 15%. " Workers were paying 33% tax, the above is correct. VAT was charged at 2 different rates, Thatcher combined them. The 83% top PAYE and 98% tax on unearned income were so extreme the 98% was the highest tax by a developed nation ever. This directly contributed to the brain drain, professionals and high earners left the country. Bringing this back to the subject of today's Chancellor, the figures are not the same but the pattern of economic policy is shaping up to potentially resemble what has gone before. An added bonus and a nod to the past, we are hearing calls from the marxists demanding the introduction of wealth taxes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Workers were paying 33% tax, the above is correct. VAT was charged at 2 different rates, Thatcher combined them. The 83% top PAYE and 98% tax on unearned income were so extreme the 98% was the highest tax by a developed nation ever. This directly contributed to the brain drain, professionals and high earners left the country. Bringing this back to the subject of today's Chancellor, the figures are not the same but the pattern of economic policy is shaping up to potentially resemble what has gone before. An added bonus and a nod to the past, we are hearing calls from the marxists demanding the introduction of wealth taxes." I think the base rate was 34% not 33% or 35%. To be fair it's quite difficult researching this stuff as the language used back then was pretty obtuse. Here's the Hansard record I found... "HC Deb 17 April 1978 vol 948 cc173-4173 §Motion made, and Question, That— (1) Income tax for the year 1978–79 shall be charged at the basic rate of 34 per cent.; and— (a) in respect of so much of an individual's total income as does not exceed £750 at the rate of 25 per cent.; (b) in respect of so much of an individual's total income as exceeds £7,000 at such higher rates as are specified in the Table below; and (c) in respect of so much of the investment income included in an individual's total income as exceeds £1,700 at the additional rates of 10 per cent. for the first £550 of the excess and 15 per cent. for the remainder; except that in the case of an individual who shows that, at any time within that year, his age or that of his wife living with him was sixty-five years or more, paragraph (c) above shall have effect with the substitution for the references to £1,700 and £550 of references to £2,500 and £500 respectively." -------------------- On VAT the basic rate in 1978 was 8% and the higher rate was 12.5%. So Thatcher increased both the standard and higher rates into one uniform 15% rate. In 1991 the Tories increased it again to 17.5%. Then in 2011 they increased it again to 20%. The Tories absolutely love VAT. In 1994 the Tories raised VAT on domestic fuel and power from zero to 8% and wanted to increase it to 17.5% a year later but lost the vote. In 1997 Labour reduced VAT on domestic fuel and power to 5%. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Workers were paying 33% tax, the above is correct. VAT was charged at 2 different rates, Thatcher combined them. The 83% top PAYE and 98% tax on unearned income were so extreme the 98% was the highest tax by a developed nation ever. This directly contributed to the brain drain, professionals and high earners left the country. Bringing this back to the subject of today's Chancellor, the figures are not the same but the pattern of economic policy is shaping up to potentially resemble what has gone before. An added bonus and a nod to the past, we are hearing calls from the marxists demanding the introduction of wealth taxes. I think the base rate was 34% not 33% or 35%. To be fair it's quite difficult researching this stuff as the language used back then was pretty obtuse. Here's the Hansard record I found... HC Deb 17 April 1978 vol 948 cc173-4173 §Motion made, and Question, That— (1) Income tax for the year 1978–79 shall be charged at the basic rate of 34 per cent.; and— (a) in respect of so much of an individual's total income as does not exceed £750 at the rate of 25 per cent.; (b) in respect of so much of an individual's total income as exceeds £7,000 at such higher rates as are specified in the Table below; and (c) in respect of so much of the investment income included in an individual's total income as exceeds £1,700 at the additional rates of 10 per cent. for the first £550 of the excess and 15 per cent. for the remainder; except that in the case of an individual who shows that, at any time within that year, his age or that of his wife living with him was sixty-five years or more, paragraph (c) above shall have effect with the substitution for the references to £1,700 and £550 of references to £2,500 and £500 respectively. -------------------- On VAT the basic rate in 1978 was 8% and the higher rate was 12.5%. So Thatcher increased both the standard and higher rates into one uniform 15% rate. In 1991 the Tories increased it again to 17.5%. Then in 2011 they increased it again to 20%. The Tories absolutely love VAT. In 1994 the Tories raised VAT on domestic fuel and power from zero to 8% and wanted to increase it to 17.5% a year later but lost the vote. In 1997 Labour reduced VAT on domestic fuel and power to 5%. " You are right on the 78–79 basic rate being 34%. The 83% top PAYE and 98% tax on unearned income were extreme, and it did drive out talent, hence the “brain drain”. It’s still the highest tax rate ever applied by a developed country. The issues we have today are not Thatcher or Healey it’s Reeves. Her policies have no coherent growth strategy, business confidence is falling rapidly as such, and now we are hearing calls for wealth taxes, just like the past. Everyone should be concerned about the current state of the economy and how it is being managed, it impacts us all. Starmer has one job to do, and he needs to get on and do it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The issues we have today are not Thatcher or Healey it’s Reeves. Her policies have no coherent growth strategy, business confidence is falling rapidly as such, and now we are hearing calls for wealth taxes, just like the past. Everyone should be concerned about the current state of the economy and how it is being managed, it impacts us all. Starmer has one job to do, and he needs to get on and do it." What’s gone before irrelevant now I agree Desperate attempts by Reeves, penny grabbing from farmers, pensioners, disabled and school fee Vat, combined £2/3bn at best. While in one month government debt increases forecasts by £3.6bn More businesses closing than opening, big ticket purchases like cars and holidays down, rising unemployment and more taxes on business and not a scooby how to turn the economy around. Labour are out of ideas. A bit of financial deregulation might keep the mortgage and housing market up for another couple of years. Where are we heading. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The issues we have today are not Thatcher or Healey it’s Reeves. Her policies have no coherent growth strategy, business confidence is falling rapidly as such, and now we are hearing calls for wealth taxes, just like the past. Everyone should be concerned about the current state of the economy and how it is being managed, it impacts us all. Starmer has one job to do, and he needs to get on and do it. What’s gone before irrelevant now I agree Desperate attempts by Reeves, penny grabbing from farmers, pensioners, disabled and school fee Vat, combined £2/3bn at best. While in one month government debt increases forecasts by £3.6bn More businesses closing than opening, big ticket purchases like cars and holidays down, rising unemployment and more taxes on business and not a scooby how to turn the economy around. Labour are out of ideas. A bit of financial deregulation might keep the mortgage and housing market up for another couple of years. Where are we heading. " The deregulation proposals need to be understood a little more, we have travelled this path ironically under Thatcher and ultimately to disaster under Blair & Brown. I have zero faith that Reeves is covering the bases. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You are right on the 78–79 basic rate being 34%. The 83% top PAYE and 98% tax on unearned income were extreme, and it did drive out talent, hence the “brain drain”. It’s still the highest tax rate ever applied by a developed country. The issues we have today are not Thatcher or Healey it’s Reeves. Her policies have no coherent growth strategy, business confidence is falling rapidly as such, and now we are hearing calls for wealth taxes, just like the past. Everyone should be concerned about the current state of the economy and how it is being managed, it impacts us all. Starmer has one job to do, and he needs to get on and do it." I think the higher rate taxes in the 1970s were daft. I'm not sure what impact they actually had on government income or brain drain. It's very difficult to do that kind of research and probably not worth any normal persons's effort. Maybe some postgraduate academic somewhere is combing through the dust, but for you and I it's a waste of time. I'm no fan of Reeves. She does seem to be out of her depth. Starmer's pretty hopeless too. But it's really annoying to hear Tories talk utter bollocks about Thatcher and perpetuate falsehoods. Anyway. I don't see any easy ways forward. The UK is in a f*ck of a lot of debt. Our productiity is not great. We have a lunatic in charge of the largest economy on the planet and several wars going on. Brexit was a stupid thing to do too. I caution people looking for simple answers. There aren't any. Just moaning about the current government or pretending they are communists isn't at all useful. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There's strong speculation that Reeves will hit pension savings to fill her 'black hole'. The government are making the case that tax exempt pension contributions are an overly generous perk. They are nothing of the kind. It's just that tax is applied at pension withdrawal not investment. Otherwise pensions are taxed twice." A potential £70bn is reported. But at what cost to retirees with state pension to be deferred again. And auto enrolment low contribution rates will pay out little | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You are right on the 78–79 basic rate being 34%. The 83% top PAYE and 98% tax on unearned income were extreme, and it did drive out talent, hence the “brain drain”. It’s still the highest tax rate ever applied by a developed country. The issues we have today are not Thatcher or Healey it’s Reeves. Her policies have no coherent growth strategy, business confidence is falling rapidly as such, and now we are hearing calls for wealth taxes, just like the past. Everyone should be concerned about the current state of the economy and how it is being managed, it impacts us all. Starmer has one job to do, and he needs to get on and do it. I think the higher rate taxes in the 1970s were daft. I'm not sure what impact they actually had on government income or brain drain. It's very difficult to do that kind of research and probably not worth any normal persons's effort. Maybe some postgraduate academic somewhere is combing through the dust, but for you and I it's a waste of time. I'm no fan of Reeves. She does seem to be out of her depth. Starmer's pretty hopeless too. But it's really annoying to hear Tories talk utter bollocks about Thatcher and perpetuate falsehoods. Anyway. I don't see any easy ways forward. The UK is in a f*ck of a lot of debt. Our productiity is not great. We have a lunatic in charge of the largest economy on the planet and several wars going on. Brexit was a stupid thing to do too. I caution people looking for simple answers. There aren't any. Just moaning about the current government or pretending they are communists isn't at all useful. " Seems to me the government are out of ideas how to stimulate the economy. If they ever had any. Debt is less of a problem if you have income. Those 1.5 million homes not getting built, car manufacturing at 72 year low, more businesses closing than opening. Commercial property listings on rightmove increasing as everyone wants out. All we are getting is more regulation and higher tax. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There's strong speculation that Reeves will hit pension savings to fill her 'black hole'. The government are making the case that tax exempt pension contributions are an overly generous perk. They are nothing of the kind. It's just that tax is applied at pension withdrawal not investment. Otherwise pensions are taxed twice." I'm not up on the rumors, but tax being applied twice is pretty much routine - we pay income tax then we pay VAT or duty on top for instance. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seems to me the government are out of ideas how to stimulate the economy. If they ever had any. Debt is less of a problem if you have income. Those 1.5 million homes not getting built, car manufacturing at 72 year low, more businesses closing than opening. Commercial property listings on rightmove increasing as everyone wants out. All we are getting is more regulation and higher tax." Do you have any policy suggestions that would stimulate the economy? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You are right on the 78–79 basic rate being 34%. The 83% top PAYE and 98% tax on unearned income were extreme, and it did drive out talent, hence the “brain drain”. It’s still the highest tax rate ever applied by a developed country. The issues we have today are not Thatcher or Healey it’s Reeves. Her policies have no coherent growth strategy, business confidence is falling rapidly as such, and now we are hearing calls for wealth taxes, just like the past. Everyone should be concerned about the current state of the economy and how it is being managed, it impacts us all. Starmer has one job to do, and he needs to get on and do it. I think the higher rate taxes in the 1970s were daft. I'm not sure what impact they actually had on government income or brain drain. It's very difficult to do that kind of research and probably not worth any normal persons's effort. Maybe some postgraduate academic somewhere is combing through the dust, but for you and I it's a waste of time. I'm no fan of Reeves. She does seem to be out of her depth. Starmer's pretty hopeless too. But it's really annoying to hear Tories talk utter bollocks about Thatcher and perpetuate falsehoods. Anyway. I don't see any easy ways forward. The UK is in a f*ck of a lot of debt. Our productiity is not great. We have a lunatic in charge of the largest economy on the planet and several wars going on. Brexit was a stupid thing to do too. I caution people looking for simple answers. There aren't any. Just moaning about the current government or pretending they are communists isn't at all useful. Seems to me the government are out of ideas how to stimulate the economy. If they ever had any. Debt is less of a problem if you have income. Those 1.5 million homes not getting built, car manufacturing at 72 year low, more businesses closing than opening. Commercial property listings on rightmove increasing as everyone wants out. All we are getting is more regulation and higher tax. " Not to mention record numbers of farms closing down. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not to mention record numbers of farms closing down." I think we talked about this a while back. It turned out the news story wasn't about farms closing down but "agricultural businesses" and even so the number of people employed in agriculture is actually increasing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seems to me the government are out of ideas how to stimulate the economy. If they ever had any. Debt is less of a problem if you have income. Those 1.5 million homes not getting built, car manufacturing at 72 year low, more businesses closing than opening. Commercial property listings on rightmove increasing as everyone wants out. All we are getting is more regulation and higher tax. Do you have any policy suggestions that would stimulate the economy?" Growth in the economy takes place when companies get bigger. Sounds obvious but a lot of our policies are aimed at companies that are already big. If a company is already worth a billion then it takes a lot of effort to grow that by 10% a year. It is much easier to grow a hundred smaller companies by a million to make that same £100m growth. We need to pivot our focus to smaller companies and stop pandering to the needs/lobbying of the larger companies. We need to reward risk taking and make it easier to start up (and shut down if they aren’t working) smaller companies. We need to push a much greater focus on the regions outside of London. London is big enough to look after itself but it gets almost all the economic attention. Focus efforts on growing smaller companies in the regions. Focus infrastructure changes out in the regions and stop making everything have to come back to London. Basically we need to shut down the Treasury and restart it outside of London - that alone would probably have a huge impact. Lean into things like climate change technology. The biggest opportunities for growth take place when industrial bases need to change - things like climate change offer a huge potential for regeneration. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not to mention record numbers of farms closing down. I think we talked about this a while back. It turned out the news story wasn't about farms closing down but "agricultural businesses" and even so the number of people employed in agriculture is actually increasing. " This from the Telegraph yesterday: “A total of 6,365 agriculture, forestry and fishing businesses have closed over the past year, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), the highest since quarterly data was first published in 2017. The majority of these closures took place during the first six months of the year after Ms Reeves, the Chancellor, announced in October that she would cut the amount of inheritance tax relief available to family farms. Just 3,190 businesses in the sector have been set up over the same period. It leaves a net loss of 3,175, indicating the number of farms is shrinking at the fastest pace on record”. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This from the Telegraph yesterday: “A total of 6,365 agriculture, forestry and fishing businesses have closed over the past year, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), the highest since quarterly data was first published in 2017. The majority of these closures took place during the first six months of the year after Ms Reeves, the Chancellor, announced in October that she would cut the amount of inheritance tax relief available to family farms. Just 3,190 businesses in the sector have been set up over the same period. It leaves a net loss of 3,175, indicating the number of farms is shrinking at the fastest pace on record." Although the Telegraph's spin is that it's farms closing that isn't what the ONS data actually says. The data is on "agriculture, forestry and fishing businesses" not "farms". On the employment numbers I managed to track down my source. Which was a farmingUK article from May 2025. "As a result, only 4,334 net new jobs were created in Q1 2025, a dramatic fall from 110,242 in the same period eight years ago." So although the sector is indeed struggling, the net number of jobs actually increased by 4,334 in the first quater of this year. I totally accept that agricultural business is suffering and there may indeed be actual farm closures but these figures aren't telling us how many farms have closed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"English towns and cities have disappeared since 2010, according to CPRE, the countryside charity." Which towns and cities? I'm not saying that UK agriculture is thriving. But I try to use sensible language. And on environmental diveristy have you looked at most farm fields? Grain, meat and dairy production requires the reduction of biodiversity in order to raise efficiency. AFAIK there are more species in the average suburban back garden than in some farmer's fields. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"English towns and cities have disappeared since 2010, according to CPRE, the countryside charity. Which towns and cities? I'm not saying that UK agriculture is thriving. But I try to use sensible language. And on environmental diveristy have you looked at most farm fields? Grain, meat and dairy production requires the reduction of biodiversity in order to raise efficiency. AFAIK there are more species in the average suburban back garden than in some farmer's fields. " Where to start, Greenpeace claims 71% of arable production is to feed cattle for human consumption. They also claim 80% of global deforestation is a result of agricultural production. Monoculture degrades soil, permaculture arguably suitable for small organic growers. Of the £225bn food sold in the uk annually, only 8% goes to farmers. (Soil 2025. A good read if your interested in growing) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hey, if things continue this way we could end up with the economic miracle that was Thatcherism when inflation was 17%, unemployment 11% and interest rates 16%. Those figures were Labour’s legacy. Thatcher cleaned up the mess with tough decisions and laid the groundwork for 15+ years of uninterrupted growth. " really? the 11% rate of unemployment in 1993 was labour's legacy? 🤡 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hey, if things continue this way we could end up with the economic miracle that was Thatcherism when inflation was 17%, unemployment 11% and interest rates 16%. Those figures were Labour’s legacy. Thatcher cleaned up the mess with tough decisions and laid the groundwork for 15+ years of uninterrupted growth. really? the 11% rate of unemployment in 1993 was labour's legacy? 🤡" If you understand the mess the country was in under the labour government, the sick man of Europe, there were always going to be issues off the back of the fixes that needed to happen. She turned the economy around and laid the foundations for Blair. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The reality in front of us is that Britain borrowed £148bn last year and £105bn or almost three-quarters of that increase in our national debt went on interest payments on debt previously incurred. £78 billion more than forecast. The UK's public finances resemble a Ponzi scheme. When challenged about the state of our public finances, Reeves and Keir Starmer cite crowd-pleasing nonsense about “school breakfast clubs” and “world class public services”. As if it’s fine to drive the UK into bankruptcy, provoking a full-on bail-out and all the resulting financial and economic chaos because the money is being spent under virtue-signalling headings ! In short we are fucked. Even if we had elected a genuinely strong government last year with a genius Chancellor we would have been up against it. We have elected muppets who I wouldn't trust to run a corner shop. " Feeding underprivileged children is "crowd pleasing nonsense". Unbelievable! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hey, if things continue this way we could end up with the economic miracle that was Thatcherism when inflation was 17%, unemployment 11% and interest rates 16%. Those figures were Labour’s legacy. Thatcher cleaned up the mess with tough decisions and laid the groundwork for 15+ years of uninterrupted growth. really? the 11% rate of unemployment in 1993 was labour's legacy? 🤡 If you understand the mess the country was in under the labour government, the sick man of Europe, there were always going to be issues off the back of the fixes that needed to happen. She turned the economy around and laid the foundations for Blair. " Absolute nonsense. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Enjoy the French debt while we the actual patriots try to figure out Britain You've not a clue. Not only can you not read but you're economically illiterate. I'm on holiday in France. I pay my taxes in the UK. I resent this as this govt and other idiot governments of the last 30 years waste much of this money on the idle , on paying back debt, the wasteful NHS, net zero bullshit, 3rd world immigrants, foreign wars and a million other useless pet projects which sink this country further into the mire. You talk about Thatcher. She did many things wrong as do all Prime Ministers. She did however turn this country round so it became rich and successful. She thought long term and didn't care what the media said, she stuck to her guns and guess what: her economics worked in the long term. So much so that by 1997 the country had cleared its national debt. Labour and to a lesser extent the fake pink conservatives under Cameron, May and Boris undid all that. My God this country needs her back now. " No argument from here. 
The 80's and 90's were fantastic for me. 
Then the Blair creature turned up.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The inevitability of this has been with us for nearly a year. Stifling business with uplifts in taxes has resulted in job losses and other BAU development prospects being put on hold. The outcome is a reduction in the amount of income tax and NI which increases borrowing. Spending billions on u-turns and public sector wages has taken away all the headroom Reeves had. She is pushing for financial deregulation, which is something we certainly need a second opinion on, with her track record. Labour has failed to deliver a coherent economic strategy, instead opting for a cycle of short sighted money grabs from areas considered weak or ticking the envy box. " You are probably correct but would another party have managed things any better? I don't know who you support but can you suggest what the party you would have preferred to have been in power, would have done and what the outcome would have been? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Inflation range under Thatcher: 3.43% to 17.97% Inflation range under Blair: 1.18% to 2.46% Unemployment range under Thatcher: 6.5% to 11.9% Unemployment range under Blair: 4.7% to 6.8% Interest rates range under Thatcher: 7.38% to 17% Interest rates range under Blair: 3.5% to 7.5% " These stats don't help without context. Thatcher inherited an economy and country on its knees. Blair inherited a country that had been through monumental economic transition. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The inevitability of this has been with us for nearly a year. Stifling business with uplifts in taxes has resulted in job losses and other BAU development prospects being put on hold. The outcome is a reduction in the amount of income tax and NI which increases borrowing. Spending billions on u-turns and public sector wages has taken away all the headroom Reeves had. She is pushing for financial deregulation, which is something we certainly need a second opinion on, with her track record. Labour has failed to deliver a coherent economic strategy, instead opting for a cycle of short sighted money grabs from areas considered weak or ticking the envy box. You are probably correct but would another party have managed things any better? I don't know who you support but can you suggest what the party you would have preferred to have been in power, would have done and what the outcome would have been? " We will never know whether another party would have handled the last 12 months more effectively from an economic point of view. But I see two main areas of concern, the Chancellor and the party itself. Starting with the party, I struggle to align with their overall economic view, which is fundamentally different from my own. But more than that, I’m disappointed by their lack of preparation. Labour had years to form detailed, credible economic plans, but what we have seen are reactive measures and billions wasted on policy u-turns. As for the Chancellor, I won’t repeat past points, but it’s clear to me a change is needed. We need someone who can bring fresh eyes and a disciplined approach ahead of the October budget. Tax rises are coming, that isn't my worry. What is my worry is appeasements that are baked in that could backfire and cost billions more wiping out the tax rise gains. It is in all of our interests, to have a government with a sound economic grasp, and that is all I want. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"These stats don't help without context. Thatcher inherited an economy and country on its knees. Blair inherited a country that had been through monumental economic transition. " I realise you actually believe the myth about Thatcher. But it's all BS. I've shown you the data but you simply refuse to process it in your mind. She ripped society apart and the economy tanked. The only good metric was that she managed to reduce debt relative to GDP from about 39% to 21% but she achieved this by selling off virtually everything that previous governments and taxpayers had built in the post war years. And it didn't last. As soon as there was no silver left to flog, Major came in and debt to GDP went back up to 36%. Under Blair it stayed more or less flat and was 35% when he left office (although it briefly dropped to 28% in his term). The Thatcher "economic miracle" never happened. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reeves and the broader whole of current labour philosophy will fail. Why? Because it follows the same neoliberalist ideologies dressed up as something else (almost identical really) as most of the twats before them. Whoever follows will likely be the same too " This is what the political system in the UK is for. Transferring power and wealth from ordinary people to those at the top. It's moving at an ever accelerating rate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reeves and the broader whole of current labour philosophy will fail. Why? Because it follows the same neoliberalist ideologies dressed up as something else (almost identical really) as most of the twats before them. Whoever follows will likely be the same too This is what the political system in the UK is for. Transferring power and wealth from ordinary people to those at the top. It's moving at an ever accelerating rate." No. Wealth inequality doesn't exist! that's just Marxist, communist, politics of envy, excuse to be lazy, blah blah blah... Everyone just needs to pull their belt straps up more, just like they have under sunak, boris, cameron, brown, blair, major, thatcher, and stop buying chai lattes (which helps the economy btw) and go out and work harder so the rich can own more stuff! Don't you know it's easy? If you're working 45+ hours a week that's not enough! You must do 2 other jobs | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"These stats don't help without context. Thatcher inherited an economy and country on its knees. Blair inherited a country that had been through monumental economic transition. I realise you actually believe the myth about Thatcher. But it's all BS. I've shown you the data but you simply refuse to process it in your mind. She ripped society apart and the economy tanked. The only good metric was that she managed to reduce debt relative to GDP from about 39% to 21% but she achieved this by selling off virtually everything that previous governments and taxpayers had built in the post war years. And it didn't last. As soon as there was no silver left to flog, Major came in and debt to GDP went back up to 36%. Under Blair it stayed more or less flat and was 35% when he left office (although it briefly dropped to 28% in his term). The Thatcher "economic miracle" never happened. " You don't understand the data or application. I have explained on a number of occasions that the landscape and circumstances were different, as well as the policies implemented. If you take a moment to consider this, and maybe use the internet, AI or whatever your chosen tool, it could help. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Inflation range under Thatcher: 3.43% to 17.97% Inflation range under Blair: 1.18% to 2.46% Unemployment range under Thatcher: 6.5% to 11.9% Unemployment range under Blair: 4.7% to 6.8% Interest rates range under Thatcher: 7.38% to 17% Interest rates range under Blair: 3.5% to 7.5% " What does range mean here? Is it the number at start of their ruling period compared with the end of their ruling period? Or is it the Maxima and minima of their ruling period? If it's the Maxima and minima, these statistics are completely useless as something bad that happened in one month can push it either way. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You don't understand the data or application. I have explained on a number of occasions that the landscape and circumstances were different, as well as the policies implemented. If you take a moment to consider this, and maybe use the internet, AI or whatever your chosen tool, it could help." You haven't explained anything. You just keep using extremely woolly language and asserting that I don't understand. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You don't understand the data or application. I have explained on a number of occasions that the landscape and circumstances were different, as well as the policies implemented. If you take a moment to consider this, and maybe use the internet, AI or whatever your chosen tool, it could help. You haven't explained anything. You just keep using extremely woolly language and asserting that I don't understand. " Statisticians usually remove outliers from statistics while trying to understand something. You have basically chosen the outliers - Maximum and minimum. Range is a ridiculous statistics to measure the performance of a government. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What does range mean here? Is it the number at start of their ruling period compared with the end of their ruling period? Or is it the Maxima and minima of their ruling period? If it's the Maxima and minima, these statistics are completely useless as something bad that happened in one month can push it either way." The ranges are the lowest and highest values of the respective parameters during their term. So the lowest figures show the best performance they achieved while in power... Thatcher: 3.34% inflation, 6.5% unemployment, 7.38% interest rate. Blair: 1.18% inflation, 4.7% unemployment, 3.5% interest rate. --- While the highest figures show the worst performance... Thatcher: 17.97% inflation, 11.9% unemployment, 17% interest rate. Blair: 2.46% inflation, 6.8% unemployment, 7.5% interest rate. --- Start figures from the end of year before they took office show what they inherited... Thatcher: 8.2% inflation, 5.5% unemployment, 12.5% interest rate. Blair: 2.85% inflation, 7.7% unemployment, 5.94% interest rate. --- End figures show what they handed over to the next administration... Thatcher: 8.06% inflation, 7.3% unemployment, 13.88% interest rate. Blair: 1.18% inflation, 5.4% unemployment, 5.5% interest rate. --- Net change over their terms... Thatcher: -0.14% inflation, +1.8% unemployment, +1.38% interest rate. Blair: -1.67% inflation, -2.3% unemployment, -0.34% interest rate. --- Blair beats Thatcher on every single count and the notion of a Thatcher "economic miracle" is complete BS. If you want to look at more detail then the sources I have been using are macrotrends, the ONS and the Bank of England. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The inevitability of this has been with us for nearly a year. Stifling business with uplifts in taxes has resulted in job losses and other BAU development prospects being put on hold. The outcome is a reduction in the amount of income tax and NI which increases borrowing. Spending billions on u-turns and public sector wages has taken away all the headroom Reeves had. She is pushing for financial deregulation, which is something we certainly need a second opinion on, with her track record. Labour has failed to deliver a coherent economic strategy, instead opting for a cycle of short sighted money grabs from areas considered weak or ticking the envy box. You are probably correct but would another party have managed things any better? I don't know who you support but can you suggest what the party you would have preferred to have been in power, would have done and what the outcome would have been? We will never know whether another party would have handled the last 12 months more effectively from an economic point of view. But I see two main areas of concern, the Chancellor and the party itself. Starting with the party, I struggle to align with their overall economic view, which is fundamentally different from my own. But more than that, I’m disappointed by their lack of preparation. Labour had years to form detailed, credible economic plans, but what we have seen are reactive measures and billions wasted on policy u-turns. As for the Chancellor, I won’t repeat past points, but it’s clear to me a change is needed. We need someone who can bring fresh eyes and a disciplined approach ahead of the October budget. Tax rises are coming, that isn't my worry. What is my worry is appeasements that are baked in that could backfire and cost billions more wiping out the tax rise gains. It is in all of our interests, to have a government with a sound economic grasp, and that is all I want." Thank you for your response | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What does range mean here? Is it the number at start of their ruling period compared with the end of their ruling period? Or is it the Maxima and minima of their ruling period? If it's the Maxima and minima, these statistics are completely useless as something bad that happened in one month can push it either way. The ranges are the lowest and highest values of the respective parameters during their term. So the lowest figures show the best performance they achieved while in power... Thatcher: 3.34% inflation, 6.5% unemployment, 7.38% interest rate. Blair: 1.18% inflation, 4.7% unemployment, 3.5% interest rate. --- While the highest figures show the worst performance... Thatcher: 17.97% inflation, 11.9% unemployment, 17% interest rate. Blair: 2.46% inflation, 6.8% unemployment, 7.5% interest rate. --- Start figures from the end of year before they took office show what they inherited... Thatcher: 8.2% inflation, 5.5% unemployment, 12.5% interest rate. Blair: 2.85% inflation, 7.7% unemployment, 5.94% interest rate. --- End figures show what they handed over to the next administration... Thatcher: 8.06% inflation, 7.3% unemployment, 13.88% interest rate. Blair: 1.18% inflation, 5.4% unemployment, 5.5% interest rate. --- Net change over their terms... Thatcher: -0.14% inflation, +1.8% unemployment, +1.38% interest rate. Blair: -1.67% inflation, -2.3% unemployment, -0.34% interest rate. --- Blair beats Thatcher on every single count and the notion of a Thatcher "economic miracle" is complete BS. If you want to look at more detail then the sources I have been using are macrotrends, the ONS and the Bank of England." If my memory serves me wasn't the 90's known as the 'nice decade'. I hope they were using the modern meaning of the word nice in the assessment and not the original meaning. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The ranges are the lowest and highest values of the respective parameters during their term. So the lowest figures show the best performance they achieved while in power... Thatcher: 3.34% inflation, 6.5% unemployment, 7.38% interest rate. Blair: 1.18% inflation, 4.7% unemployment, 3.5% interest rate. --- While the highest figures show the worst performance... Thatcher: 17.97% inflation, 11.9% unemployment, 17% interest rate. Blair: 2.46% inflation, 6.8% unemployment, 7.5% interest rate. --- Start figures from the end of year before they took office show what they inherited... Thatcher: 8.2% inflation, 5.5% unemployment, 12.5% interest rate. Blair: 2.85% inflation, 7.7% unemployment, 5.94% interest rate. --- End figures show what they handed over to the next administration... Thatcher: 8.06% inflation, 7.3% unemployment, 13.88% interest rate. Blair: 1.18% inflation, 5.4% unemployment, 5.5% interest rate. --- Net change over their terms... Thatcher: -0.14% inflation, +1.8% unemployment, +1.38% interest rate. Blair: -1.67% inflation, -2.3% unemployment, -0.34% interest rate. --- Blair beats Thatcher on every single count and the notion of a Thatcher "economic miracle" is complete BS. If you want to look at more detail then the sources I have been using are macrotrends, the ONS and the Bank of England." As I mentioned above, there is a reason why statisticians never look at best and worst numbers. These are outliers they tend to eliminate. Let's say a new prime minister comes in with the existing inflation rate at 30%, his highest range is already 30% no matter what he does. Similarly if someone comes in when inflation is at 1%, his lowest range is already 1% without having to do anything. Who is a better prime minister? Someone who came in with inflation at 30% and reduced it to 10% or someone who came in at 1% and increased it to 5%? If we follow your methodology, the first prime minister would be worse because the range is 10% minimum and 30% maximum while the second one has 1% and 5% respectively. Range is such a weird choice of metric to judge the performance of a prime minister. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I mentioned above, there is a reason why statistics never look at best and worst numbers. These are outliers they tend to eliminate. Let's say a new prime minister comes in with the existing inflation rate at 30%, his highest range is already 30% no matter what he does. Similarly if someone comes in when inflation is at 1%, his lowest range is already 1% without having to do anything. Who is a better prime minister? Someone who came in with inflation at 30% and reduced it to 10% or someone who came in at 1% and increased it to 5%? If we follow your methodology, the first prime minister would be worse because the range is 10% minimum and 30% maximum while the second one has 1% and 5% respectively. Range is such a weird choice of statistics to judge the performance of a prime minister." Did you bother to read my last post? Thatcher left office with virtually the same inflation rate as she inherited and with unemployment and interest rates higher than when she began. During her term inflation, unemployment and interest rates went up to eye-watering levels. Even if we look at the very best moments of her time in office they weren't great... 3.34% inflation, 6.5% unemployment, 7.38% interest rate. People are now moaning about how dire the current economy is with... 3.6% inflation, 4.7% unemployment and 4.25% interest rate. Where is the Thatcherite "economic miracle" that Tories keep bragging about? It never existed. Tories have brainwashed themselves (and some others) about Thatcherism for so long that they can't process reality. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I mentioned above, there is a reason why statistics never look at best and worst numbers. These are outliers they tend to eliminate. Let's say a new prime minister comes in with the existing inflation rate at 30%, his highest range is already 30% no matter what he does. Similarly if someone comes in when inflation is at 1%, his lowest range is already 1% without having to do anything. Who is a better prime minister? Someone who came in with inflation at 30% and reduced it to 10% or someone who came in at 1% and increased it to 5%? If we follow your methodology, the first prime minister would be worse because the range is 10% minimum and 30% maximum while the second one has 1% and 5% respectively. Range is such a weird choice of statistics to judge the performance of a prime minister. Did you bother to read my last post? Thatcher left office with virtually the same inflation rate as she inherited and with unemployment and interest rates higher than when she began. During her term inflation, unemployment and interest rates went up to eye-watering levels. Even if we look at the very best moments of her time in office they weren't great... 3.34% inflation, 6.5% unemployment, 7.38% interest rate. People are now moaning about how dire the current economy is with... 3.6% inflation, 4.7% unemployment and 4.25% interest rate. Where is the Thatcherite "economic miracle" that Tories keep bragging about? It never existed. Tories have brainwashed themselves (and some others) about Thatcherism for so long that they can't process reality. " Where did you get your inflation statistics from. This article gives different numbers for Thatcher: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-22070491 Also, by your own metrics, John Major is a MUCH BETTER prime minister compared to Blair. Will you accept that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Where did you get your inflation statistics from. This article gives different numbers for Thatcher: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-22070491 Also, by your own metrics, John Major is a MUCH BETTER prime minister compared to Blair. Will you accept that?" I've already told you that my sources were macrotrends, the ONS and the Bank of England. If you can't be bothered reading then I'm wasting my time on you, but I'll continue for the benefit of others. The data in that BBC article confirms what I've said although they used RPI rather than CPI inflation numbers and expressed unemployment in absolute rather than percentage terms. Let's look at inflation under Major, yes he brought it down by 5.84% to 2.85% but under Blair it went down to 1.18%. In your magical Tory world 2.85% inflation is better than 1.18% inflation. On unemployment under Major it went from 7.3% to 7.7%, by the end of Blair's term it was down to 5.4%. In your magical Tory world 7.7% unemployment is better than 5.4%. Major did a good job of bringing 13.88% interest rates down to 5.94% but Blair reduced them further to 5.5%. In your magical Tory world a 5.94% interest rate is better than 5.5%. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The data in that BBC article confirms what I've said although they used RPI rather than CPI inflation numbers and expressed unemployment in absolute rather than percentage terms. " RPI Vs CPI isn't the problem here. You conveniently took the inflation rate from the year before Thatcher took over. Thatcher took over in May and UK inflation shot up in the months leading up to her election. If we look at inflation numbers during her regime, it came down from 16% to 10% Unemployment numbers don't make sense either because population only increased during that period and unemployment rate must have at least remained stable. " Let's look at inflation under Major, yes he brought it down by 5.84% to 2.85% but under Blair it went down to 1.18%. In your magical Tory world 2.85% inflation is better than 1.18% inflation. " Let's look at this in more detail: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/9/5/infographic-the-uk-inflation-under-each-prime-minister You see the inflation chart at the top? You see that under Tony Blair, inflation was actually going up slowly and suddenly nosedived in.... 2008. It was the recession that pulled down inflation because people couldn't or were unwilling to spend their money. It's not really something Blair should be proud about 😅 " On unemployment under Major it went from 7.3% to 7.7%, by the end of Blair's term it was down to 5.4%. In your magical Tory world 7.7% unemployment is better than 5.4%. " It looks like you handpicked and approximated these numbers in dodgy ways to support your argument. Reality is quite different: https://fullfact.org/economy/labour-unemployment-record/ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've not manipulated any of the figures. Unless there's a typo everything I've written is factual according to the sources I quoted. The inflation numbers are by year 1978 = 8.26%, 1979 = 13.42%, 1980 = 19.97%, 1981 = 11.88%. If you care to write a detailed rebuttal with specific dates, numbers and their sources rather than vague comments then I'd be happy to discuss where I might have made any mistakes. " I already explained it in my previous post. 1) Approximating it to year vastly takes away the context. Inflation rates spiked up in 1979 leading up to the time when Thatcher took over which was in the month of May. It's visible in the graph on the BBC link I shared. So Thatcher took over at a higher inflation rate. 2) Inflation rate nosedived in 2008 because of recession. People did not have any money to spend. Until then, the inflation rate was increasing under Blair. You can see that in the Al-Jazeera link that I shared, the inflation rate has a sudden V shape starting 2008. 3) Unemployment rates did not fall under Blair either. You can check the full fact link I shared. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I said specific dates, numbers and their sources. You are looking at a near vertical line on a low-res BBC graphic and a wobbly line on an Al-Jazeera graphic and desperately trying to read deep things into them. " The BBC graph is a bar graph with one big bar for each year. They also marked in grey the exact time when Thatcher took over. It's not hard to see the inflation rate at the time she started. A recession where people suddenly stopped spending their money reduces inflation rate. Didn't housing crash at that time? And you see the inflation rate steadily rising under Blair until that moment. This is why you shouldn't blindly look at these numbers and see it with context. That inflation drop in 2008 isn't really something Blair should be proud of. " Also Blair left office in June 2007. " And handed over a shit show of an economy to Gordon Brown | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The BBC graph is a bar graph with one big bar for each year. They also marked in grey the exact time when Thatcher took over. It's not hard to see the inflation rate at the time she started." Ok, so what was the inflation rate the exact time that Thatcher took over? And what is the source for that specific data? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've not manipulated any of the figures. Unless there's a typo everything I've written is factual according to the sources I quoted. The inflation numbers are by year 1978 = 8.26%, 1979 = 13.42%, 1980 = 19.97%, 1981 = 11.88%. If you care to write a detailed rebuttal with specific dates, numbers and their sources rather than vague comments then I'd be happy to discuss where I might have made any mistakes. " i've cross referenced your figures with some other sources such as LSE, IMF, BoE etc etc and don't worry, they are absolutely razor accurate and completely underpin the reality which you have mentioned in detail.... excellent work | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The BBC graph is a bar graph with one big bar for each year. They also marked in grey the exact time when Thatcher took over. It's not hard to see the inflation rate at the time she started. Ok, so what was the inflation rate the exact time that Thatcher took over? And what is the source for that specific data?" It's visible in the graph. I don't know why you are pretending like you can't see it. Look at where the grey area ends and the white area starts. It's at 16%. Look at where the white area ends and the grey area starts. It's a little less than 10% | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've not manipulated any of the figures. Unless there's a typo everything I've written is factual according to the sources I quoted. The inflation numbers are by year 1978 = 8.26%, 1979 = 13.42%, 1980 = 19.97%, 1981 = 11.88%. If you care to write a detailed rebuttal with specific dates, numbers and their sources rather than vague comments then I'd be happy to discuss where I might have made any mistakes. i've cross referenced your figures with some other sources such as LSE, IMF, BoE etc etc and don't worry, they are absolutely razor accurate and completely underpin the reality which you have mentioned in detail.... excellent work "No one said the numbers are wrong. They are useless because you are looking at the wrong times of the year. It's not really rocket science. I do know why I have to write so many posts to explain it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You don't understand the data or application. I have explained on a number of occasions that the landscape and circumstances were different, as well as the policies implemented. If you take a moment to consider this, and maybe use the internet, AI or whatever your chosen tool, it could help. You haven't explained anything. You just keep using extremely woolly language and asserting that I don't understand. Statisticians usually remove outliers from statistics while trying to understand something. You have basically chosen the outliers - Maximum and minimum. Range is a ridiculous statistics to measure the performance of a government." This
The fact that this point isn’t self evident is why I believe critical thinking should be a core part of the school curriculum. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's visible in the graph. I don't know why you are pretending like you can't see it. Look at where the grey area ends and the white area starts. It's at 16%. Look at where the white area ends and the grey area starts. It's a little less than 10%" You are looking at a graph where someone in a graphics department has drawn a line between two data points and you are imagining that the pixels on that line are also data points. It's a common thing for graphs designers to do as it helps people visualise more easily. Technically it's called linear interpolation. But it's not real data which is why you can't as yet say what inflation was on the day Thatcher came to office or provide a source for that specific number. As an example a shop might take £10,000 on a Thursday and £15,000 the next day. One could represent this as a straight line on a graph that visualises the shop's taking over a period of time and that would be helpful but it doesn't mean that the shop's turnover was £12,500 in the middle of the night between that Thursday and Friday. I used the macrotrends dataset because it was the first one I found that covered the whole period from 1960 to 2024. It has one year resolution and that's good enough resolution for a debate where we are looking back 40+ years at a political term that lasted from 1979 to 1990. If you want to bring up a dataset that has higher resolution than one year then please do so and we can use that. I'll then go back and recalulate the numbers with higher precision. But it doesn't alter the basic argument. Inflation for 1978 was 8.26% in 1979 it was 13.42%, in 1980 it was 19.97% and in 1981 it was 11.88%. Let's steelman your argument and say that CPI was actually midway between the two data points at 10.84%. Or let's go even further and completely ignore the data for 1979 and pretend inflation was 13.42% in May 1979 - this doesn't really alter much. Inflation kept going up the year after when it reached 19.97%. You can't say that Thatcher wasn't in power in 1980! And reducing inflation doesn't mean that prices fall, just that they stop going up at as fast a rate. The 19.97% inflation in 1980 was never reversed. The proposition put forward by Tories was that there was an "economic miracle" in the Thatcher years and even if you zoomed in to look at the data in miniscule detail there wasn't one. You are clutching at straws. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The fact that this point isn’t self evident is why I believe critical thinking should be a core part of the school curriculum." You can chuckle at my intellectual capabilities all you like. I spoke about linear interpolation in my last post. I'm confident in my critical thinking skills as I recently developed an optimised solution for solving Cubic Hermite Spline Interpolation. Here's a beginner's guide to what that means... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_Hermite_spline | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's visible in the graph. I don't know why you are pretending like you can't see it. Look at where the grey area ends and the white area starts. It's at 16%. Look at where the white area ends and the grey area starts. It's a little less than 10% You are looking at a graph where someone in a graphics department has drawn a line between two data points and you are imagining that the pixels on that line are also data points. It's a common thing for graphs designers to do as it helps people visualise more easily. Technically it's called linear interpolation. But it's not real data which is why you can't as yet say what inflation was on the day Thatcher came to office or provide a source for that specific number. As an example a shop might take £10,000 on a Thursday and £15,000 the next day. One could represent this as a straight line on a graph that visualises the shop's taking over a period of time and that would be helpful but it doesn't mean that the shop's turnover was £12,500 in the middle of the night between that Thursday and Friday. I used the macrotrends dataset because it was the first one I found that covered the whole period from 1960 to 2024. It has one year resolution and that's good enough resolution for a debate where we are looking back 40+ years at a political term that lasted from 1979 to 1990. If you want to bring up a dataset that has higher resolution than one year then please do so and we can use that. I'll then go back and recalulate the numbers with higher precision. But it doesn't alter the basic argument. Inflation for 1978 was 8.26% in 1979 it was 13.42%, in 1980 it was 19.97% and in 1981 it was 11.88%. Let's steelman your argument and say that CPI was actually midway between the two data points at 10.84%. Or let's go even further and completely ignore the data for 1979 and pretend inflation was 13.42% in May 1979 - this doesn't really alter much. Inflation kept going up the year after when it reached 19.97%. You can't say that Thatcher wasn't in power in 1980! And reducing inflation doesn't mean that prices fall, just that they stop going up at as fast a rate. The 19.97% inflation in 1980 was never reversed. The proposition put forward by Tories was that there was an "economic miracle" in the Thatcher years and even if you zoomed in to look at the data in miniscule detail there wasn't one. You are clutching at straws. " What was it then that arrested the UK's economic decline in the 80's? In the 70's the country was the 'sick man of Europe' and an ungovernable basket case. How do you account for the turnaround? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What was it then that arrested the UK's economic decline in the 80's? In the 70's the country was the 'sick man of Europe' and an ungovernable basket case. How do you account for the turnaround?" What economic turnaround? Give me numbers and dates and sources. The phrase 'sick man of Europe' isn't data. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You are looking at a graph where someone in a graphics department has drawn a line between two data points and you are imagining that the pixels on that line are also data points. It's a common thing for graphs designers to do as it helps people visualise more easily. " Not true. If that's the case, the graph would be a straight extrapolation, not curves with ups and downs within a single year as it is shown in the graph. It's based on monthly inflation data. " As an example a shop might take £10,000 on a Thursday and £15,000 the next day. " I know what interpolation is. That graph is clearly not an interpolation. It's not that hard to see. The rest of your post looks like an essay written based on the wrong assumption that it's interpolation. Thatcher came to power in May 1979. Inflation shot up that year leading up to that election. Also, it's ridiculous to measure inflation exactly from the start to end of someone's rule. Once a new PM comes to power, it takes a few months to even do the budget and then it takes even more time to have an impact on the economy. And you made it even worse by taking the inflation rate a year before she took power. With your biased methods, you have managed to hide the shit show of an economy when Thatcher took power and also hide the shit show of an economy that Blair left because you have effectively moved the recession's effects under Gordon Brown. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Doesn't help the press is constantly so negative. Go out spend your cash and whatever you have left invest. We need to switch our mindset conservatives were terrible labour is trying to help. So the state of the economy is the media’s fault?" Tbh it's the previous 14 years of Tory rule. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread has turned into a postmortem. Same as the politicians with no ideas for economic growth just blaming and comparing now irrelevant data from the past" I agree to a point. The only really pertinent post was this one... "Growth in the economy takes place when companies get bigger. Sounds obvious but a lot of our policies are aimed at companies that are already big. If a company is already worth a billion then it takes a lot of effort to grow that by 10% a year. It is much easier to grow a hundred smaller companies by a million to make that same £100m growth. We need to pivot our focus to smaller companies and stop pandering to the needs/lobbying of the larger companies. We need to reward risk taking and make it easier to start up (and shut down if they aren’t working) smaller companies. We need to push a much greater focus on the regions outside of London. London is big enough to look after itself but it gets almost all the economic attention. Focus efforts on growing smaller companies in the regions. Focus infrastructure changes out in the regions and stop making everything have to come back to London. Basically we need to shut down the Treasury and restart it outside of London - that alone would probably have a huge impact. Lean into things like climate change technology. The biggest opportunities for growth take place when industrial bases need to change - things like climate change offer a huge potential for regeneration." Perhaps we can discuss this? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Present a source you are happy with for higher resolution data and I'll use that to recalculate the numbers I've used in the inflation aspect of my argument. By a source I don't mean a web graphic from 2013. " The BBC source is higher resolution data. It's not interpolation. Look at how the line goes up and down WITHIN each year. Does that look like interpolation? That's not how interpolation works. As I said, you have made biased choices on your numbers to hide the terrible state of economy that Thatcher took over and a terrible state of economy that Blair left with. Are you seriously arguing that a guy who was leading the country for about a decade just before the 2008 recession did a good job with the economy? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The BBC source is higher resolution data. It's not interpolation. Look at how the line goes up and down WITHIN each year. Does that look like interpolation? That's not how interpolation works. As I said, you have made biased choices on your numbers to hide the terrible state of economy that Thatcher took over and a terrible state of economy that Blair left with. Are you seriously arguing that a guy who was leading the country for about a decade just before the 2008 recession did a good job with the economy?" This is a waste of time. If you can extract exact numbers and dates from that GIF file then good luck. The global meltdown in 2008 isn't what I've been talking about - the question is whether Thatcher's so-called "economic miracle" was BS or not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The BBC source is higher resolution data. It's not interpolation. Look at how the line goes up and down WITHIN each year. Does that look like interpolation? That's not how interpolation works. As I said, you have made biased choices on your numbers to hide the terrible state of economy that Thatcher took over and a terrible state of economy that Blair left with. Are you seriously arguing that a guy who was leading the country for about a decade just before the 2008 recession did a good job with the economy? This is a waste of time. If you can extract exact numbers and dates from that GIF file then good luck. The global meltdown in 2008 isn't what I've been talking about - the question is whether Thatcher's so-called "economic miracle" was BS or not. " Was certainly a miracle for me. Turned my life around, never had it so good. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The BBC source is higher resolution data. It's not interpolation. Look at how the line goes up and down WITHIN each year. Does that look like interpolation? That's not how interpolation works. As I said, you have made biased choices on your numbers to hide the terrible state of economy that Thatcher took over and a terrible state of economy that Blair left with. Are you seriously arguing that a guy who was leading the country for about a decade just before the 2008 recession did a good job with the economy? This is a waste of time. If you can extract exact numbers and dates from that GIF file then good luck. The global meltdown in 2008 isn't what I've been talking about - the question is whether Thatcher's so-called "economic miracle" was BS or not. " You pretend like you know a lot about statistics and interpolation. And yet, you can't see the graph and find that it's drawn based on monthly numbers and isn't an interpolation of the whole year?
Look at how the line goes up and down within the years 1980 and within the years 1984. How can you see that and call it interpolation? You have all the data you need right in front of your eyes. You don't want to see it because of your bias against Thatcher and your bias in favour of Blair.
Anyway, you can find monthly CPI interest rates in global-rates website. You can find the same spike that BBC shows in the month of May 1979 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What has 1979 got to do with the current financial situation ?" You can search and find out who started talking about Thatcher first. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What has 1979 got to do with the current financial situation ?" I brought up this subject because so many Tories are moaning about the current government's handling of the economy. And there's a cult like belief that Thatcher achieved an "economic miracle". I wanted to show that the current situation is nothing like as bad as it was during Thatcher's time. I don't support Labour and don't think they are doing a brilliant job but it's tiresome hearing people complain while not offering any practical suggestions for how to improve things. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What has 1979 got to do with the current financial situation ?" Good question. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thanks, I eventually managed to find higher resolution CPI inflation data for the period on global-rates.com. If you zoom right in it looks like its data points are one or two month apart. It's a very poor quality user interface so it took me ages to extract the data but here we go... Oct 1978 = 7.83% Dec 78 = 8.39% Feb 79 = 9.6% Apr 79 = 10.07% May 79 = 10.32% * when Thatcher came into office Jul 79 = 15.65% Sep 79 = 16.48% Nov 79 = 17.38% Jan 80 = 18.39% Feb 80 = 19.1% Apr 80 = 21.76% Jun 80 = 20.99% Aug 80 = 16.28% Sep 80 = 15.87% Nov 80 = 15.31% Jan 81 = 13.05% Mar 81 = 12.61% It keeps falling until eventually in Feb 82 it's 11.04% In April 82 it finally drops below the point it was when she took office... Apr 82 = 9.41% So as I said before, inflation more than doubled under her leadership. Using these figures from 10.32% to 21.76%. And it was above the rate she inherited for almost three years. The lowest point it reached was in July 1986 at 2.42%, it then climbed back up to 9.25% by Oct 1990 which is the last available figure for her term. So the CPI inflation rate during Thatcher's time starts at 10.32%, ends at 9.25%, giving a net change of -1.07%. It peaked at an eye-watering 21.76% and her best result was 2.42%. " Thatcher's first budget was delivered in June. Do you seriously think that she was responsible for the inflation rate published in July 1979? Do you seriously believe that's how economics work? This is why I criticised you using "range" as a metric to determine economic performance. Even with Milei in Argentina, the first couple of months, there was a huge increase in inflation only for it to drop down steadily to much lower rates before he took leadership. Because any massive economic reform will cause some short term thrash as the market tries to adapt to it. As for Thatcher, the rate was about 10% on the exact date she took leadership. It went to about 15% when she delivered her first budget. She ended with 9.75%. The temporary peak it reached in between doesn't mean she did badly. In her first budget, she reduced income taxes which means more people had money in their hands. This will obviously result in inflation because people's purchasing power increased before productivity could increase. As productivity was able to catch up, inflation decreased. This is why blindly looking at statistics without looking at the context doesn't tell you anything. If you blindly look at inflation rate, it would almost look like the country was doing fantastically well in 2008. Wouldn't it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What has 1979 got to do with the current financial situation ? I brought up this subject because so many Tories are moaning about the current government's handling of the economy. And there's a cult like belief that Thatcher achieved an "economic miracle". I wanted to show that the current situation is nothing like as bad as it was during Thatcher's time. I don't support Labour and don't think they are doing a brilliant job but it's tiresome hearing people complain while not offering any practical suggestions for how to improve things. " Thatcher took over at a time when the country was on its knees and left it at a much better state than it was. She screwed up with her decision making in her last term and was rightfully booted out. But to pretend like she didn't do anything good for the economy is a gross misrepresentation. And to pretend like the authoritarian fraud Tony Blair handled the economy well is an even worse misrepresentation. The guy's ruling period took is to one of the biggest recessions we have had since the turn of the century. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It could well be that most of what happened was beyond Thatcher's control. The UK economy doesn't exist in isolation from other economies. But this isn't the claim that Tories make - they say that Thatcher was solely responsible for the non-existent economic miracle. I've addressed inflation, unemployment, interest rates, income tax, national debt and VAT. " You did not address inflation and unemployment rate. They were both gross misuse of statistics. You started with "Range", then moved on to pick statistics from the year before they even took power. " Basically it's impossible to persuade some people that a belief they have held for all of their adult life is false. " Given the number of times you have been caught misusing statistics and had to move goal posts, I think this applies to you more than anyone else in this thread. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I didn't start with range I began with the difference between the stats under the current Labour government and the Thatcher "economic miracle". When challenged I then moved on to data under the Labour government prior to Thatcher and compared it to the "economic miracle". Someone claimed that Thatcher completely eliminated the national debt and I showed that she doubled it in absolute numbers but managed to reduce it in debt to GDP ratio terms by selling off all of the family silver. But this didn't last once she had sold everything paid for by previous generations. Someone brought up income tax reduction under Thatcher and I pointed out that almost nobody paid the higher rates and that VAT went from 8% to 15% under her. Then someone brought up Blair so I moved on to the difference between the Blair era and the "economic miracle". Then you challenged the maxim/minima range summary I made so I moved on to the start and end data of the "economic miracle" Then you got into straw clutching detail about the granulaity of inflation statistics so we had our little conversation. I mentioned linear interpolation and in response you used a strawman argument that I claimed the interpolation was on a yearly basis. I used a steelman argument to show that if we took the most favourable possible position to you, the "economic miracle" still didn''t materialize. You eventually came up with a source with higher time resolution on CPI inflation. Then I showed that my argument stood up even when we looked at inflation data at this higher resolution. You have resorted to accusations of dishonesty and still the "economic miracle" doesn't stand up. There aren't that many people reading this so our argument doesn't matter at all but thanks for the amusement value you have provided. " You’re the only one calling it an “economic miracle”... You’re also still dodging some basic points, most people paid the basic rate of income tax, which was 33% when Thatcher came in. You keep swerving toward the 83% and 95% marginal rates, which applied to a tiny minority and were part of a system clearly in need of reform and caused the brain drain.... Once again the stats you’re providing ignores context. Economic outcomes can’t be lifted in isolation they are the product of circumstance, strategy, and structural reform. This has been said many times in the thread, but you keep cycling through different angles to reach the same predetermined conclusion. Think of it like this; Treating economic stats across the years without context is like comparing lap times in Formula 1 without accounting for track condition, tyres, or if it was raining or sunny. The thread is about the current Chancellor, what are your thoughts on her performance to date? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I mentioned linear interpolation and in response you used a strawman argument that I claimed the interpolation was on a yearly basis. " We were looking for the inflation from the time when Thatcher took over. You were using dodgy numbers to make your point by using inflation numbers from the year before. When pointed out that the BBC chart has more accurate metrics, you resorted to excuses like it's just interpolation when it clearly showed the steep rise in inflation in the month she was elected. " Then I showed that my argument stood up even when we looked at inflation data at this higher resolution. " It did not stand up. The first budget was delivered in June. If you think that the temporary increase in inflation after the budget because she reduced the taxes is a bad thing, you should buy an economics book. Similarly, reduction in inflation during recession isn't a good thing either. That's not something Blairites should be proud about | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You’re the only one calling it an “economic miracle”..." It or similar phrases have been routinely trotted out by dry Tories. Are you finally saying it was a crap performance? "You’re also still dodging some basic points, most people paid the basic rate of income tax, which was 33% when Thatcher came in. You keep swerving toward the 83% and 95% marginal rates, which applied to a tiny minority and were part of a system clearly in need of reform and caused the brain drain...." It was 34% not 33% remember? I've already said the higher rates of income tax were daft. I've also pointed out that the last reduction of basic rate income tax (to 20%) was by a Labour government in 2007. "Once again the stats you’re providing ignores context. Economic outcomes can’t be lifted in isolation they are the product of circumstance, strategy, and structural reform. This has been said many times in the thread, but you keep cycling through different angles to reach the same predetermined conclusion. Think of it like this; Treating economic stats across the years without context is like comparing lap times in Formula 1 without accounting for track condition, tyres, or if it was raining or sunny." And once again you are using extremely woolly language, presumably because you don't have a coherent case to make that is based on facts. "The thread is about the current Chancellor, what are your thoughts on her performance to date?" She is at best underwhelming. She doesn't have any solid ideas about how to improve things and is just tinkering and reacting to problems as they occur. But if I were in her position I don't think I could do any better. I'm also pretty sure that if you were in her position you couldn't do any better either. Let's try and think of some way to improve things. One poster mentioned a few ideas about helping small businesses and I'd endorse that in principle but having started lots of small businesses I don't see any easy answers. It's almost impossible to get venture capital and I've lost a lot of money starting small businesses. Fortunately that's been balanced by success but I don't see any obvious way to avoid small business failure rates. Also I think green investment is a big opportunity and am very disappointed that the government have withdrawn from this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We were looking for the inflation from the time when Thatcher took over. You were using dodgy numbers to make your point by using inflation numbers from the year before. When pointed out that the BBC chart has more accurate metrics, you resorted to excuses like it's just interpolation when it clearly showed the steep rise in inflation in the month she was elected." Please stop accusing me of being dishonest. It's insulting and makes you look like a fool. I explicitly said ""Start figures from the end of year before they took office". I haven't attempted any data manipulation. On interpolation, I was talking about the near vertical line of the GIF image. The BBC graphic wasn't accurate metrics. We've moved on and looked at the actual data from the global-rates.com dataset that you recommended we used. And that data confirms my argument. Or are you now disputing the dataset you recommended? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We were looking for the inflation from the time when Thatcher took over. You were using dodgy numbers to make your point by using inflation numbers from the year before. When pointed out that the BBC chart has more accurate metrics, you resorted to excuses like it's just interpolation when it clearly showed the steep rise in inflation in the month she was elected. Please stop accusing me of being dishonest. It's insulting and makes you look like a fool. I explicitly said ""Start figures from the end of year before they took office". I haven't attempted any data manipulation. " Yes and my point was that you chose the wrong timelines to measure just so that Blair will look good and Thatcher will look bad. " On interpolation, I was talking about the near vertical line of the GIF image. " That vertical line was genuine spike in inflation in the month she took over and it was not interpolation. " The BBC graphic wasn't accurate metrics. We've moved on and looked at the actual data from the global-rates.com dataset that you recommended we used. And that data confirms my argument. Or are you now disputing the dataset you recommended? " The graph agrees with the dataset we looked at later. You just struggled to understand that graph. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You’re the only one calling it an “economic miracle”." "It or similar phrases have been routinely trotted out by dry Tories." I didn't remember that phrase being used about Thatcher, so I had a Google. It seems like all of the sites that contain the words "thatcher" and "economic miracle" are left-leaning articles denying that it happened. I don't see anyone claiming that it was a miracle. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You’re the only one calling it an “economic miracle”. It or similar phrases have been routinely trotted out by dry Tories. I didn't remember that phrase being used about Thatcher, so I had a Google. It seems like all of the sites that contain the words "thatcher" and "economic miracle" are left-leaning articles denying that it happened. I don't see anyone claiming that it was a miracle." https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/simonheffer/8051591/Let-Essex-Man-work-his-magic-again.html | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You’re the only one calling it an “economic miracle”." "It or similar phrases have been routinely trotted out by dry Tories." "I didn't remember that phrase being used about Thatcher, so I had a Google. It seems like all of the sites that contain the words "thatcher" and "economic miracle" are left-leaning articles denying that it happened. I don't see anyone claiming that it was a miracle." "https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/simonheffer/8051591/Let-Essex-Man-work-his-magic-again.html" And how long did it take you to find that 15 year old article? How many 'the economic miracle is a lie' links did you have to scroll past to get to it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I didn't remember that phrase being used about Thatcher, so I had a Google. It seems like all of the sites that contain the words "thatcher" and "economic miracle" are left-leaning articles denying that it happened. I don't see anyone claiming that it was a miracle." I wouldn't read too much into google searches on this kind of thing. I typed in praise for Thactcher and all I got on the first page were stories about Keir Starmer praising her. Somehow I don't think her only admirer is Starmer. Also if you are a right-winger you'll never hear the phrase "economic miracle" because you'll never find yourself arguing with another right-winger about her. But to be fair, it's far more likely that I'll hear something like "Thatcher was the best Prime Minister we've ever had. Britain was on its knees, bankrupt and known as the sickman of Europe before she came along and completely transformed the country for the better, she turned the economy around and left it fantastic shape". I could have written this guff instead of "economic miracle" I guess, but it wouldn't have made any difference to the argument. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You’re the only one calling it an “economic miracle”. It or similar phrases have been routinely trotted out by dry Tories. I didn't remember that phrase being used about Thatcher, so I had a Google. It seems like all of the sites that contain the words "thatcher" and "economic miracle" are left-leaning articles denying that it happened. I don't see anyone claiming that it was a miracle. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/simonheffer/8051591/Let-Essex-Man-work-his-magic-again.html And how long did it take you to find that 15 year old article? How many 'the economic miracle is a lie' links did you have to scroll past to get to it?" it was top of the google search list, so probably less than 1 pico second | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But to be fair, it's far more likely that I'll hear something like "Thatcher was the best Prime Minister we've ever had. Britain was on its knees, bankrupt and known as the sickman of Europe before she came along and completely transformed the country for the better, she turned the economy around and left it fantastic shape"." I could understand that, and I agree that people say it. My thinking is that those that support Thatcher believe that she simply applied standard economic theory to get the effect she wanted, and it worked for her. Those people don't believe there was a miracle, just sensible choices with the expected results. It seems to be that it's only the opposition that are referring to it as an "economic miracle", and then only to say that's the wrong phrase to use. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And how long did it take you to find that 15 year old article? How many 'the economic miracle is a lie' links did you have to scroll past to get to it?" "it was top of the google search list, so probably less than 1 pico second " I'd be interested to hear how many other people see that link at (or even near) the top of the search list. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I could understand that, and I agree that people say it. My thinking is that those that support Thatcher believe that she simply applied standard economic theory to get the effect she wanted, and it worked for her. Those people don't believe there was a miracle, just sensible choices with the expected results." It probable did work for her. But for most regular people it was a disaster. Inflation went up to 21.76%, unemployment went up to 11.9%, interest rates went up to 17%, VAT went from 8% to 15% and she sold off all of the family silver. Yes, she managed to cut standard rate income tax to 30% (and eventually to 25% in 1988) but for the one and three-quarter million people who lost their jobs during her time that was no help at all. She was hopeless on just about every metric, yet Tories still believe she did a fantastic job. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I could understand that, and I agree that people say it. My thinking is that those that support Thatcher believe that she simply applied standard economic theory to get the effect she wanted, and it worked for her. Those people don't believe there was a miracle, just sensible choices with the expected results. It probable did work for her. But for most regular people it was a disaster. Inflation went up to 21.76%, unemployment went up to 11.9%, interest rates went up to 17%, VAT went from 8% to 15% and she sold off all of the family silver. Yes, she managed to cut standard rate income tax to 30% (and eventually to 25% in 1988) but for the one and three-quarter million people who lost their jobs during her time that was no help at all. She was hopeless on just about every metric, yet Tories still believe she did a fantastic job." Going back to misuse of statistics again I see 😅 If a politician passes a budget, the inflation shoots up from 15 to 20% for a couple of months and then goes down to 10% were it settles. Is that a good budget or a bad budget? It's the left wingers who keep thinking that miracles are pulled and somehow a budget will magically yield good results immediately. There will always be temporary pain before things get to normal. Like how Milei did with Argentina. Inflation shot up initially before coming down to much lower numbers. You repeatedly use "it went up to", that means you are intentionally taking the worst numbers during a person's ruling period irrespective of how long those stayed up there. This is the complete opposite of how you are supposed to use statistics. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I could understand that, and I agree that people say it. My thinking is that those that support Thatcher believe that she simply applied standard economic theory to get the effect she wanted, and it worked for her. Those people don't believe there was a miracle, just sensible choices with the expected results. It probable did work for her. But for most regular people it was a disaster. Inflation went up to 21.76%, unemployment went up to 11.9%, interest rates went up to 17%, VAT went from 8% to 15% and she sold off all of the family silver. Yes, she managed to cut standard rate income tax to 30% (and eventually to 25% in 1988) but for the one and three-quarter million people who lost their jobs during her time that was no help at all. She was hopeless on just about every metric, yet Tories still believe she did a fantastic job." So hopeless that she won 3 general elections. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The thread got derailed early on, a masterclass in whataboutery... Back to the point.. I think the Chancellor’s real trouble will peak in October. If she "clings on", Starmer may let her go before Christmas, using seasonal sales uplifts to time the optics. Personally, I would prefer he acted now and bring in fresh eyes before the Autumn Budget." The only interesting and constructive post on here was one by _ellhungvwe and nobody could be bothered to respond to it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Government borrowing has increased again. Borrowing increased to £20.7bn in June. £3.6bn more than the treasury experts predicted; that’s a 15% miscalculation Bond yields have fallen, food inflation +5.2%, rents +6.7%. Rising unemployment. More businesses closing than opening. Economic growth fallen Will an interest rate cut and more tax rises save the day? " I think their scope for tax rises is limited given they have ruled out income tax and NI rises. Not sure if they ruled out VAT rises or not so that may be a possibility. Tax rises on business is also difficult now as after introducing the last lot of rises they publicly stated that it was a one off and they won't be bar for more. Also they do seem to have had a negative effect on the economy as predicted by some. Maybe the tax on petrol and diesel will go up though it will hit working people. Maybe they will go for some form of wealth tax. All seems very limited without breaking promises | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It probable did work for her. But for most regular people it was a disaster ... unemployment went up to 11.9%...." This is where your lack of context and focus on just the numbers lets your argument down. Thatcher came into power with the stated aim of ridding the country of large amounts of loss-making state run industry. Obviously, closing lots of businesses is going to increase unemployment, that's part of the plan. But unemployment came back down again. She had managed to close lots of unprofitable drains on the economy, and get all those workers re-employed in other jobs. Now you might think that closing those companies was a bad idea, but that's irrelevant. She set out to achieve a change, and she made that change. There was predictable pain along the way, but the end result was a better place overall k in her estimation). Reducing all that just to saying "unemployment went up, she was crap" doesn't do you any favours. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think their scope for tax rises is limited given they have ruled out income tax and NI rises. Not sure if they ruled out VAT rises or not so that may be a possibility. Tax rises on business is also difficult now as after introducing the last lot of rises they publicly stated that it was a one off and they won't be bar for more. Also they do seem to have had a negative effect on the economy as predicted by some. Maybe the tax on petrol and diesel will go up though it will hit working people. Maybe they will go for some form of wealth tax. All seems very limited without breaking promises" You're right. I think that Labour were foolish to box themselves in so much. But few people expect politicians to keep their word so they could plead that special circumstances mean they have no other choice but to raise taxes on the well off and international outfits that try to minimize their tax burden in ways that many members of the public feel are not fair. But internationals and the super rich have ways of avoiding tax. Increasing duty on petrol and diesel would increase inflation but they might raise it a tiny bit and say it was a green initiative. So I don't think much money could be raised from limited tax increases and it might not be worth the reputational cost on balance. Increased borrowing for infrastructure investment that might boost growth is one possibility but debt is already so high they would be wary of that. So overall I don't expect any radical policy moves. They have enough time before an election to tread water and just tinker with things for a year or two in the hope that the world economy picks up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is where your lack of context and focus on just the numbers lets your argument down. Thatcher came into power with the stated aim of ridding the country of large amounts of loss-making state run industry. Obviously, closing lots of businesses is going to increase unemployment, that's part of the plan. But unemployment came back down again. She had managed to close lots of unprofitable drains on the economy, and get all those workers re-employed in other jobs. Now you might think that closing those companies was a bad idea, but that's irrelevant. She set out to achieve a change, and she made that change. There was predictable pain along the way, but the end result was a better place overall k in her estimation). Reducing all that just to saying "unemployment went up, she was crap" doesn't do you any favours." I'm at least offering analysis backed by numbers rather than your fact free commentary. Unemployment in 1971 was 3.8%. The most it got to between then and Thatcher was 5.7% and it was only 3.4% in 1973. After five years of her swinging the wrecking ball it had reached 11.9% and it never came back down to the pre-Thatcher levels. She didn't "get all those workers re-employed in other jobs". The best she achieved was 6.9% and that took her eleven years! And that didn't last as unemployment shot back and reached a peak of 10.7% in 1992 under Major. So the idea that she achieved some amazing restructuring is BS. Unemployment didn't get back to pre-Thatcher levels until 2000 when Blair was in power. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is where your lack of context and focus on just the numbers lets your argument down. Thatcher came into power with the stated aim of ridding the country of large amounts of loss-making state run industry. Obviously, closing lots of businesses is going to increase unemployment, that's part of the plan. But unemployment came back down again. She had managed to close lots of unprofitable drains on the economy, and get all those workers re-employed in other jobs. Now you might think that closing those companies was a bad idea, but that's irrelevant. She set out to achieve a change, and she made that change. There was predictable pain along the way, but the end result was a better place overall k in her estimation). Reducing all that just to saying "unemployment went up, she was crap" doesn't do you any favours." "I'm at least offering analysis backed by numbers rather than your fact free commentary. Unemployment in 1971 was 3.8%. The most it got to between then and Thatcher was 5.7% and it was only 3.4% in 1973. After five years of her swinging the wrecking ball it had reached 11.9% and it never came back down to the pre-Thatcher levels. She didn't "get all those workers re-employed in other jobs". The best she achieved was 6.9% and that took her eleven years! And that didn't last as unemployment shot back and reached a peak of 10.7% in 1992 under Major. So the idea that she achieved some amazing restructuring is BS. Unemployment didn't get back to pre-Thatcher levels until 2000 when Blair was in power." Well, it's clear that you've long ago done all your thinking on this subject, and you have no intention of doing any more, whatever anyone says. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well, it's clear that you've long ago done all your thinking on this subject, and you have no intention of doing any more, whatever anyone says." I'm open to changing my mind when someone makes an insightful comment or brings new evidence to a debate. But arguments that are faith-based or consist of nothing more than woolly language or that use logical fallacies aren't going to persuade me. If you don't want to engage with me then don't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well, it's clear that you've long ago done all your thinking on this subject, and you have no intention of doing any more, whatever anyone says." "I'm open to changing my mind when someone makes an insightful comment or brings new evidence to a debate." That's clearly not true. I've pointed out that those who admire Thatcher wanted the reforms she made, and considered the cost of high unemployment to be worth the gains made. You counter this by just talking about the high level of unemployment and ignoring all other aspects I get it, you hate Thatcher, but there's no point pretending to be doing a dispassionate analysis based on figures if you don't acknowledge that your figures are meaningless to the conversation you're pretending to have. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The thread got derailed early on, a masterclass in whataboutery... Back to the point.. I think the Chancellor’s real trouble will peak in October. If she "clings on", Starmer may let her go before Christmas, using seasonal sales uplifts to time the optics. Personally, I would prefer he acted now and bring in fresh eyes before the Autumn Budget. The only interesting and constructive post on here was one by _ellhungvwe and nobody could be bothered to respond to it." The only interesting point for you, evident by the effort to derail the topic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""I'm open to changing my mind when someone makes an insightful comment or brings new evidence to a debate." That's clearly not true. I've pointed out that those who admire Thatcher wanted the reforms she made, and considered the cost of high unemployment to be worth the gains made. You counter this by just talking about the high level of unemployment and ignoring all other aspects" You comment wasn't insightful nor did it bring new evidence. You said... "But unemployment came back down again. She had managed to close lots of unprofitable drains on the economy, and get all those workers re-employed in other jobs." This is not true so I pointed it out. What her fans thought about her is irrelevant to what actually happened. "I get it, you hate Thatcher, but there's no point pretending to be doing a dispassionate analysis based on figures if you don't acknowledge that your figures are meaningless to the conversation you're pretending to have." No, you don't get it. I don't hate Thatcher, I just think lots of people massively overrate her achievements. I find many of the propositions put forward by fans of Thatcher to be false so I argue against them using evidence. I'm not pretending to have any conversation. What does that even mean? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's been fun lads, it was like an AI bot battle royale. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
