If Michael Foot had been prime minister.......
Discussion
The banking crisis wouldn't have had much impact, as there would have been no financial services in the country.
So we would be broke.
We would work for Hollande level taxation, but at all levels not just the top rate.
The miners and BR would have got a pay rise, so even more on the take.
However we wouldn't be in the EU.
So we would be broke.
We would work for Hollande level taxation, but at all levels not just the top rate.
The miners and BR would have got a pay rise, so even more on the take.
However we wouldn't be in the EU.
A more optimistic way to look at it is this:
If Foot was elected 1983, Britain left the EU, and then disastrous sums of money were poured into propping up failed industries and pandering to every socialist whim for the next 5 years while cozying up to Moscow. The economy continues to stagnate while other countries ride the Raeganaut 80s wave of big hair driven growth, then in 1987 they finally get kicked out by a proper right wing Conservative party, hopefully lead by Thatcher, but Lawson, Tebbit or a couple of others could have done the job.
The 1990s and 2000s could have looked very different if Major's government hadn't been the tired old divided rabble that it was, and if Foot could have been the final nail in the coffin of British socialism it might even have saved us the "lost decade" we're now in the middle of in terms of growth.
If Foot was elected 1983, Britain left the EU, and then disastrous sums of money were poured into propping up failed industries and pandering to every socialist whim for the next 5 years while cozying up to Moscow. The economy continues to stagnate while other countries ride the Raeganaut 80s wave of big hair driven growth, then in 1987 they finally get kicked out by a proper right wing Conservative party, hopefully lead by Thatcher, but Lawson, Tebbit or a couple of others could have done the job.
The 1990s and 2000s could have looked very different if Major's government hadn't been the tired old divided rabble that it was, and if Foot could have been the final nail in the coffin of British socialism it might even have saved us the "lost decade" we're now in the middle of in terms of growth.
Twincam16 said:
Exactly. I suspect many on here can't extricate socialism from Stalinist Communism, which is about as far removed from most forms of socialism as the extreme capitalism of the Middle East is from Western social democracy.
I can't see what's 'evil' about expecting society's wealthy to cough up a bit of cash to make sure the people who work for them (directly or indirectly) don't starve, freeze or die of curable illnesses, nor setting policies to benefit the majority rather than the proven failure of the assumed 'trickle-down' effect (it's been more of a 'trickle-up'), nor maximising job opportunities for the majority rather than sacking everyone in the name of 'efficiency'.
This country has only ever had one government that actually applied socialist principles. After WWI there was a right wing government. The country came out of the war with considerable debts. The government decided to entrench and cut expenditure without trying to increase income. So for a dozen years the UK was in its own recession. The rich stayed rich but there were fewer of them after the war. Munitions is the place to be during a war of course but the problem was that there was little to used the machinery for given the lack of disposable income.I can't see what's 'evil' about expecting society's wealthy to cough up a bit of cash to make sure the people who work for them (directly or indirectly) don't starve, freeze or die of curable illnesses, nor setting policies to benefit the majority rather than the proven failure of the assumed 'trickle-down' effect (it's been more of a 'trickle-up'), nor maximising job opportunities for the majority rather than sacking everyone in the name of 'efficiency'.
The land fit for heroes had an absolutely terrible infant mortality rate. My paternal grandmother lost at least 8. You didn't go to doctors, and midwives were just some women who'd done it before.
The Wall Street Crash came at a time when the UK had gone backwards for years and was in more debt than after WWI. Despite the Empire the government managed to make us paupers.
After WWII, or nearly after, we got the nearest thing to a socialist government. It was a union between lots of different groups (see current, and probably all previous tory parties) so was not strictly socialist but it did put into action socialist principles. Transport was nationalised, road, rail and airlines. Coal, steel, power, phones, etc.
Atlee concentrated on exports, or to put it another way, getting income. His government allowed rationing to continue, indeed increased it to include bread for the first time. This was suggested as a necessity.
It is fair to say that sacrifice wasn't popular but there was a lot of information about the state of the economy. I've mentioned before that the father of a friend of mine, high up in the civil service, was part of/in charge of planning for closing schools and putting children into the fields for harvest and planting.
The UK was utterly bankrupt after the war, much worse than we are now. Socialist principles, or rather some of them, were used to get us out of the mire. The 60s were a direct result of the push for nationalisation of infrastructure and production.
It served its purpose and although the tactics for the tories was to repeal rationing, they judged well the population's frustration with making do. Labour were promising the same old.
We don't know what the tories would have done after the war if they had got in. Given Churchill's (reported) friendship, or at least influence, with the Americans. One wonders if they would have pulled the plug on loans to us quite so quickly once the war ended. Certainly he wouldn't have sent Keynes to confuse American senators.
But then if the plug had not been pulled we might have well not built on exports and improved infrastructure. We don't know and cannot say.
What we can say is that capitalism failed between the wars, and spectacularly. Older people suffering from rickets was quite common in my youth. There were suggestions that the rationing diet was good for people as health actually improved during the war. What actually happened was that many of the poorest were conscripted and all of a sudden had three squares a day. My father, who joined up in '38, did boxing and had an egg, a real one, for breakfast every day. Literally, he said, like Christmas every day.
So from the point of view of my family, capitalism failed them between the wars and socialism ensured the future for their children.
Whilst there is no way the population would put up with the sacrifices of immediate post war Britain, Cameron seems to be concentration on contraction. Atlee concentrated on exports.
Twincam16 said:
I suspect many on here can't extricate socialism from Stalinist Communism
Possibly, but PH is more likely to be a place where that doesn't apply as widely as elsewhere. You'll be aware of the ubiquitous (non-)definition of socialism...'any of various theories or systems of social organisation in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy' (online dictionary, there are many like that from a wide range of credible sources). There are various flavours of socialism and no single definition could cope with all of them. In particular, in Marxist theory, isn't socialism a transitional social state between capitalism and communism? As such it can approach the destination regime as closely as any observer can distinguish a difference within the continuum.Smiler. said:
Saddle bum said:
TTwiggy said:
I've never really been able to grasp why some posters on here have such hatred for socialism. I cannot fathom how it is any more 'evil' than many other mainstream political ideals. To my mind, the difference between socialism and capitalism simply lies in a shift of ownership between the 'many' and the 'few'. Both have good and bad points; neither seems 'perfect' nor 'evil' to me.
Capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealthSocialism is the equal distribution of misery.
Socialism stifles every natural urge for self betterment, at the same time it encourages dependency in an attempt to create loyalty.
Or, that could just be because a happy worker is a productive worker.
Either way, what has derailed socialism is the objectionable, self-appointed exponents in the modern day.
Saddle bum said:
Smiler. said:
Saddle bum said:
TTwiggy said:
I've never really been able to grasp why some posters on here have such hatred for socialism. I cannot fathom how it is any more 'evil' than many other mainstream political ideals. To my mind, the difference between socialism and capitalism simply lies in a shift of ownership between the 'many' and the 'few'. Both have good and bad points; neither seems 'perfect' nor 'evil' to me.
Capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealthSocialism is the equal distribution of misery.
Socialism stifles every natural urge for self betterment, at the same time it encourages dependency in an attempt to create loyalty.
Or, that could just be because a happy worker is a productive worker.
Either way, what has derailed socialism is the objectionable, self-appointed exponents in the modern day.
An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's (insert any left leaning leader) socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan".. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D! No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. Could not be any simpler than that. (Please pass this on) These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
turbobloke said:
In particular, in Marxist theory, isn't socialism a transitional social state between capitalism and communism? As such it can approach the destination regime as closely as any observer can distinguish a difference within the continuum.
Karl Popper...critical rationalism.Derek
Was it really capitalism that failed between the wars?
Before WW1 public spending was a fairly steady 15% of GDP, after the spike to pay for the war it never went under 30% again, and hasn't since. There were significant public spending programmes on building council houses amongst other things. Though not as overtly socialist as the Atlee government they certainly spent the money freely. This period also saw a big increase in restrictions on trade and immigration which are hardly consistent with free market ideas either.
After WW2 it dropped down to 35% again fairly quickly where it stayed throughout the 1950s before creeping up again through the 60s and 70s.
Try www.ukpublicspending.co.uk for some interesting historical data on it.
Was it really capitalism that failed between the wars?
Before WW1 public spending was a fairly steady 15% of GDP, after the spike to pay for the war it never went under 30% again, and hasn't since. There were significant public spending programmes on building council houses amongst other things. Though not as overtly socialist as the Atlee government they certainly spent the money freely. This period also saw a big increase in restrictions on trade and immigration which are hardly consistent with free market ideas either.
After WW2 it dropped down to 35% again fairly quickly where it stayed throughout the 1950s before creeping up again through the 60s and 70s.
Try www.ukpublicspending.co.uk for some interesting historical data on it.
AJS- said:
Derek
Was it really capitalism that failed between the wars?
Before WW1 public spending was a fairly steady 15% of GDP, after the spike to pay for the war it never went under 30% again, and hasn't since. There were significant public spending programmes on building council houses amongst other things. Though not as overtly socialist as the Atlee government they certainly spent the money freely. This period also saw a big increase in restrictions on trade and immigration which are hardly consistent with free market ideas either.
After WW2 it dropped down to 35% again fairly quickly where it stayed throughout the 1950s before creeping up again through the 60s and 70s.
Try www.ukpublicspending.co.uk for some interesting historical data on it.
One statistic doesn't define the period. One could bring up the fact that by the start of the Wall Street Crash, Britain was in a worse state financially than it was in 1918. (Not an argument, but to suggest anything other than that stats are not that useful.)Was it really capitalism that failed between the wars?
Before WW1 public spending was a fairly steady 15% of GDP, after the spike to pay for the war it never went under 30% again, and hasn't since. There were significant public spending programmes on building council houses amongst other things. Though not as overtly socialist as the Atlee government they certainly spent the money freely. This period also saw a big increase in restrictions on trade and immigration which are hardly consistent with free market ideas either.
After WW2 it dropped down to 35% again fairly quickly where it stayed throughout the 1950s before creeping up again through the 60s and 70s.
Try www.ukpublicspending.co.uk for some interesting historical data on it.
Other countries fared a lot better than this during the inter-war period. Whilst there were those in this country for whom life improved, albeit temporarily, for most it got worse. Compare 1929, pre WSC, to 1956. OK, so we'd had a conservative government by then but it had got in by promising an end to the process of a controlled economy. An end to the limited rationing that was then happening.
The actual reality of inter-war Britain for the working class has not received an awful lot of coverage. The term land fit for heroes was used derisively by my family about those times. There were strikes brought on by cuts in wages which left families unable to feed their kids. My father said that as youngest of a brood of 18 he was lucky as he was spoiled by his aunts and uncles. He was the tallest by five or six inches because he had food as a kid. Yet he said that when my elder brother was born he promised himself that he would never let him go to bed hungry. That was his reality.
This was the reality of letting the market dictate. Hunger, dissatisfaction and a high infant mortality.
There was no push to increase markets, to expand or even to exploit the Empire.
I'm not, perish the thought, suggesting that socialism is the only option. What I am suggesting, with the comparison between the two responses to post war Britain, is that Atlee got Britain onto the right road. Remember that in the interwar era there was considerable political unrest. Communism and fascism were threats to the government. Both were welcomed by the masses. My family had communist leanings, one uncle fighting in the International Brigade. The Battle of Cable Street was something of a family outing but they did not attend as a pro government demonstration, as it was depicted.
Mosley, or rather his dreadful wife, found support for her particular ramblings amongst those who lived around me. Had the war not come one wonders what might have occurred. Two opposing factions living side by side. A recipe for a pleasant life.
The situation at present is far better than it was in 1945. Britain was broke immediately post war. The only thing we could do was borrow. We'd sold off assets during the war and had little to bargain with except support. Without the Cold War things could have got very cold in the UK. The lump sum Keynes negotiated (which oddly led to my father's family being very anti American) could have been squandered but instead was invested. The rail and road network was all but destroyed, the mines were in a dreadful state, and production of steel and such was on a war footing and could not be turned to something productive without investment. Even so, without the later Marshall Plan we'd still have been struggling.
I'm saying two things: The Atlee government got it right after the war. The decision to go with the NHS can't be considered a failure just because it is in such a state now. That is not a failure of the NHS but a failure of government management. In the immediate post war years it was an essential. We could have sold off the mines sooner, as we did the road network, but then we could have kept the railway nationalised. Even with the left wing government there was a lot of political extremism around. Few stayed with fascism but communism, or at least a form of it, was very strong. Atlee's reformation nipped a lot of the complaints in the bud. I'm not sure Churchill could have done the same.
The other point is that, from the point of view of the masses, the post WWI governments got it spectacularly wrong. I had an uncle who reckoned that the WSC had no effect in this country.
I see myself as neither a socialist nor a capitalist. I reckon that both options can be useful in certain circumstances.
That particular statistic seems quite useful when discussing what appeared to be the contention of your earlier post that "capitalism" failed between the wars, and "socialism" succeeded afterwards.
I put in quotations as they are broad terms, but if you look at the growth of government and it's conscious efforts to redistribute wealth then it seems there is a strong case to be made for this happening to an even greater degree after the first war than the second. Once government spending settled down again in 1920 it was at double the level it had been before 1914. By contrast the period around WW2 saw spending go from 30% in 1939 through the massive spike during the war and fell back to 35% by 1950.
I put in quotations as they are broad terms, but if you look at the growth of government and it's conscious efforts to redistribute wealth then it seems there is a strong case to be made for this happening to an even greater degree after the first war than the second. Once government spending settled down again in 1920 it was at double the level it had been before 1914. By contrast the period around WW2 saw spending go from 30% in 1939 through the massive spike during the war and fell back to 35% by 1950.
AJS- said:
That particular statistic seems quite useful when discussing what appeared to be the contention of your earlier post that "capitalism" failed between the wars, and "socialism" succeeded afterwards.
I put in quotations as they are broad terms, but if you look at the growth of government and it's conscious efforts to redistribute wealth then it seems there is a strong case to be made for this happening to an even greater degree after the first war than the second. Once government spending settled down again in 1920 it was at double the level it had been before 1914. By contrast the period around WW2 saw spending go from 30% in 1939 through the massive spike during the war and fell back to 35% by 1950.
No jobs. No ability of many to pay for a doctor. Little or no support for those injured during service in the war. A very high infant mortality. No jobs. No paying off of the wear debt. No resilience built in for the WSC. Rickets rife. A drop in the standard of living for the majority. What happened once the world wide recession hit us was out of the control of any government but it might have helped if there had been a stronger financial base.I put in quotations as they are broad terms, but if you look at the growth of government and it's conscious efforts to redistribute wealth then it seems there is a strong case to be made for this happening to an even greater degree after the first war than the second. Once government spending settled down again in 1920 it was at double the level it had been before 1914. By contrast the period around WW2 saw spending go from 30% in 1939 through the massive spike during the war and fell back to 35% by 1950.
I had few uncles but they were all interested in history, especially recent history. They explained to me what it was like for them and their parents. Once I started reading for myself I found they'd left out a lot. The Wall Street Crash for one thing. One uncle told me that it made no difference to his life nor that of our family. It just hit those at the top (which would have included the middle classes in his terminology).
Had the same MO been used after WWII then it would have been a case of deja vu. Atlee, whether his socialism was forced on him because of the state of the country's infrastructure or if it was a matter of belief is of no real consequence. Politically there were big differences as well. Communism hadn't gone away amongst the workers although fascism had to a great extent. But if anything, that was more worrying as before the war it had split the 'working classes'. Atlee was highly moral and it would appear that he saw little problem in demanding sacrifice to settle the economy. The 'export or die' drive was hardly hard line socialism but that, to many, was the most important aspect of his time in office. He didn't invent it of course, but he made it the cornerstone of his government.
I'm no socialist, but then I'm no capitalist. Both have massive weaknesses. I'm a pragmatist if anything but that too is far from perfect. But I do feel that the only government that had any real desire towards socialist principles did an excellent job should be acknowledged. It made errors but these did not include the welfare state, the nationalisation of road, rail, steel etc. These were essential for economic and political reasons. The natives were restless after the war, as they were after WWI, but this time there were organisations willing to exploit the dissatisfaction.
From the point of view of an unaligned but interested voter, I reckon that the boy done good. I'd place him as one of the two two post war PMs.
Derek Smith said:
I had few uncles but they were all interested in history, especially recent history. They explained to me what it was like for them and their parents. Once I started reading for myself I found they'd left out a lot. The Wall Street Crash for one thing. One uncle told me that it made no difference to his life nor that of our family. It just hit those at the top (which would have included the middle classes in his terminology).
Maybe so to them, but the WSC and the subsequent shipping slump had a massive impact on Clydeside and other shipbuilding areas; construction practically stopped for a long period and tens of thousands were laid off, in 1931 30% of the male population of the Clyde was unemployed.hidetheelephants said:
Derek Smith said:
I had few uncles but they were all interested in history, especially recent history. They explained to me what it was like for them and their parents. Once I started reading for myself I found they'd left out a lot. The Wall Street Crash for one thing. One uncle told me that it made no difference to his life nor that of our family. It just hit those at the top (which would have included the middle classes in his terminology).
Maybe so to them, but the WSC and the subsequent shipping slump had a massive impact on Clydeside and other shipbuilding areas; construction practically stopped for a long period and tens of thousands were laid off, in 1931 30% of the male population of the Clyde was unemployed.There were a few families in my area which came over after the WSC from NI. It was, they reckoned, worse over there. It'd been hard enough before the WSC.
Even so, there were pay cuts during the 20s for those in work. A lot of my uncles joined the Merchant Marine as they got food on the table. Their money was normally sent straight to their wives, after deductions for rum. But even then there was olittle to live on and my father used to 'scavange' for coal. They'd sit by the side of the tracks from the docks to the shunting yards and the guards would throw lumps of coal to them as the trucks went past. Theft was a big problem in the area but if it was for essentials then the police took little or no notice as long as you didn't take more than your share. After all, a PC earned little more than a deck-hand on a coastal tramp.
Mind you, in those days if the local PC did not conform to local mores his job became risky. I was told stories of the 'old days' by an old boy who used to come into my first nick on nights for a cup of tea and a chat. He was all but blind. He reckoned that when the local shops refused to serve his wife he told his superiors and he was moved. It was, it seemed, a warning. Before that if she walked into a shop and there was a queue the shop keepers would often move her to the front and serve her first. They were not being nice of course. They were making her, and her hubby, different. Someone to dislike.
CommanderJameson said:
For reasons probably unfounded in economic or political theory, and based mainly on the fact that I respected the man enormously, I would have liked to have seen John Smith have a turn in No. 10.
Had he survived, he might have been the first Labour leader to have tempted me...but then again with Kinnocchio in the recent background and Mandlescum hovering, maybe not. Strangely I can remember exactly where I was when I heard of his demise.Seemed like a decent cove, though.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff