New Labour meets Yes Minister
Discussion
Apparently consigned to the minority BBC4 channel by left wing Blair-ite BBC cronyista, a new 3 part comedy series starts on BBC4 10:30pm Thursday. The Thick of It
If you don't have digital, satellite cable etc beg borrow or invite yourself to a mates house where you can watch it.
According to insiders it does to New Labour what Yes Minister did, only in spades.
Yes it does contain bad language, very very foul language, yes it is exaggerated as most of these things are.
According to people who know, the comedy at many times is so uncomfortably close to the truth that if they weren't so thick skinned Tiny Blur and co might want it taken off air....... or consigned to a channel almost nobody watches.
Chris Langham as the hapless minister, and Peter Capaldi superbly cast in the role of No10 enforcer.
Me, I can't wait until Thursday 22:30, already dialled into the video recorder.
FiF
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Wednesday 18th May 13:35
If you don't have digital, satellite cable etc beg borrow or invite yourself to a mates house where you can watch it.
According to insiders it does to New Labour what Yes Minister did, only in spades.
Yes it does contain bad language, very very foul language, yes it is exaggerated as most of these things are.
According to people who know, the comedy at many times is so uncomfortably close to the truth that if they weren't so thick skinned Tiny Blur and co might want it taken off air....... or consigned to a channel almost nobody watches.
Chris Langham as the hapless minister, and Peter Capaldi superbly cast in the role of No10 enforcer.
Chris Langham said:
One gets the impression that day-to-day life in a ministry is much more kick, bollock and scramble than it is five-year plan.
Me, I can't wait until Thursday 22:30, already dialled into the video recorder.
FiF
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Wednesday 18th May 13:35
When New Labour actualy got into power in 97, in some bizzare coincidence , I'd just borrowed Yes Minister the book from a friend.
T'was very funny, just as I remembered the series, but it wa so like watching the news at the time, everything (common transport policy, freedom of information etc) was almost word for word Yes Labour/NewMinister.
T'was very funny, just as I remembered the series, but it wa so like watching the news at the time, everything (common transport policy, freedom of information etc) was almost word for word Yes Labour/NewMinister.
It proves what a good series it was. It was actually written as a counter against the Thatcher government of the day. Although never stated in the script as to what party Hatcher was a member of, there was no doubt that Hatcher was definitely a true blue Tory.
It started in 1981 when anti-Maggie feeling was probably at its height and there was every possibility that she would not win a second term.
I think the Conservatives had a lot to thank General Galtieri for in 1983.
It also just shows how much Labour has shifted in the intervening two decades that people can draw parallels between the script of an "Anti-Tory" inspired show and a current Labour government.
It started in 1981 when anti-Maggie feeling was probably at its height and there was every possibility that she would not win a second term.
I think the Conservatives had a lot to thank General Galtieri for in 1983.
It also just shows how much Labour has shifted in the intervening two decades that people can draw parallels between the script of an "Anti-Tory" inspired show and a current Labour government.
Kinnock was in charge by 1983.
I really think she would not have won the second election without the Falklands factor coming into play. Resentment to her decimation of traditional insustrial towns was very, very high at the time and the problem of inner city strife was massive. I'm not being judgemental as to whether she was good or bad but that really was the atmosphere in the UK at the time. The Falklands changed everything.
I really think she would not have won the second election without the Falklands factor coming into play. Resentment to her decimation of traditional insustrial towns was very, very high at the time and the problem of inner city strife was massive. I'm not being judgemental as to whether she was good or bad but that really was the atmosphere in the UK at the time. The Falklands changed everything.
Eric Mc said:
Kinnock was in charge by 1983.
I really think she would not have won the second election without the Falklands factor coming into play. Resentment to her decimation of traditional insustrial towns was very, very high at the time and the problem of inner city strife was massive. I'm not being judgemental as to whether she was good or bad but that really was the atmosphere in the UK at the time. The Falklands changed everything.
Kinnock took over after Foot lost the election.
Did he?
I was basing my post on the fact that he appeared in that Tracey Ullman video in 1983 (you can see how politically aware I was at the time
). It must have been after the election then.
However, even if Kinnock wasn't the leader, Labour might still have won the 1983 election if it hadn't been for the Falklands. In fact, it was strongly assumed that Mrs T called the election early rather than wait until 1984, which she could have done, as she was sliding in the polls as the Falkland's War receded.
I was basing my post on the fact that he appeared in that Tracey Ullman video in 1983 (you can see how politically aware I was at the time
). It must have been after the election then. However, even if Kinnock wasn't the leader, Labour might still have won the 1983 election if it hadn't been for the Falklands. In fact, it was strongly assumed that Mrs T called the election early rather than wait until 1984, which she could have done, as she was sliding in the polls as the Falkland's War receded.
Yes I agree that the Conservatives were in a tight spot prior to 1992.
But by Labour's own admission (see their website) they too were in a pickle at that time. They's drifted strongly to the left and there was a huge amount of internal conflict. They weren't in a fit state to govern until 1992, which is something often overlooked in the bash-Maggie threads we sometimes see.
But by Labour's own admission (see their website) they too were in a pickle at that time. They's drifted strongly to the left and there was a huge amount of internal conflict. They weren't in a fit state to govern until 1992, which is something often overlooked in the bash-Maggie threads we sometimes see.
Quisler said:
Yes, the economy was rather grim in the early 80s as the conservatives imposed tough economic policies. Does anyone remember when VAT went up from 8%(?) to 15% in a short space of time...I believe this was around 1980-81. I'm probably wrong, but can't find the exact details on the web.
She dropped it right off "essential goods" and hiked it up on other stuff. Gave people the choice in other words.
Standard Rate VAT started at 10% in 1973. It was reduced to 8% later in the 70s but in 1979 in Mrs T's first budget, Geoffrey Howe increased it to 15%. In 1991 it was further increased to the present 17.5%.
Britain had applied a Zero % rate to "Essential" goods from the very beginning of VAT in 1973. Mrs T or her successors have only striven to drag as much as they could out of Zero Rating and into Standard Rating. Virtually everything we buy that is isn't essential is Standard Rated. Even some absolutely essential items - like heating our homes, is subject to VAT at 5%.
On some items (such as insurance) which were totally exempt from VAT, the Conservatives invented a brand new tax (Insurance Premium Tax). Needless to say, Gordon Brown has declined to abolish it since taking over in 1997.
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Wednesday 18th May 16:37
Britain had applied a Zero % rate to "Essential" goods from the very beginning of VAT in 1973. Mrs T or her successors have only striven to drag as much as they could out of Zero Rating and into Standard Rating. Virtually everything we buy that is isn't essential is Standard Rated. Even some absolutely essential items - like heating our homes, is subject to VAT at 5%.
On some items (such as insurance) which were totally exempt from VAT, the Conservatives invented a brand new tax (Insurance Premium Tax). Needless to say, Gordon Brown has declined to abolish it since taking over in 1997.
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Wednesday 18th May 16:37
Eric Mc said:
Standard Rate VAT started at 10% in 1973. It was reduced to 8% later in the 70s but in 1979 in Mrs T's first budget, Geoffrey Howe increased it to 15%. In 1991 it was further increased to the present 17.5%.
Britain had applied a Zero % rate to "Essential" goods from the very beginning of VAT in 1973. Mrs T or her successors have only striven to drag as much as they could out of Zero Rating and into Standard Rating. Virtually everything we buy that is isn't essential is Standard Rated. Even some absolutely essential items - like heating our homes, is subject to VAT at 5%.
On some items (such as insurance) which were totally exempt from VAT, the Conservatives invented a brand new tax (Insurance Premium Tax). Needless to say, Gordon Brown has declined to abolish it since taking over in 1997.
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Wednesday 18th May 16:37
Replacing taxes on income with those on consumption, to my mind a very good move.
It's a great ethical debate - should those on low incomes pay similar taxes as those on high incomes?
It's funny how the Conservatives were not concerned about ability to pay when hiking up VAT rates but were VERY concerned about ability to pay when abolishing rates and replacing themn with the Community charge.
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Wednesday 18th May 16:48
It's funny how the Conservatives were not concerned about ability to pay when hiking up VAT rates but were VERY concerned about ability to pay when abolishing rates and replacing themn with the Community charge.
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Wednesday 18th May 16:48
Eric Mc said:
It's a great ethical debate - should those on low incomes pay similar taxes as those on high incomes?
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Wednesday 18th May 16:48
It is not necessarily the case that replacing income tax with Vat means the poor pay proportionally more in tax.
The more money you have the more you spend after all, and basic foodstuffs are exempt from VAT.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff