70s Economically Illiterate Politicians: Parallels
Discussion
The Rest Is History are doing James Callaghan's period of office:
https://pdst.fm/e/traffic.megaphone.fm/GLT95980178...
It's astonishing how people are still demanding self contradictory things that were said then and proved wrong at the time.
There were people saying we shouldn't follow the orders of the lenders. To which the response was "If we stop borrowing we don't need to do what the lenders say." Of course they wanted to keep borrowing but still not do what the lenders wanted. (Andy Burnham still saying that today.)
Then there was the concept of a seige economy espoused by Benn and most of the party grass roots. The idea being we'd use tariffs to stop imports but that foreign countries would still let us export unhindered. A seige where the people outside wouldn't go into the castle, but would allow the people in tbe castle to come and go as they pleased. (Largely Trump economics.)
Then there was the whole concept of telling the IMF they were wrong whilst still demanding money and essentially trying to convince Europe they needed us more than we needed then. (2010's in the UK?)
Despite zero majority Callaghan was pretty good at telling his party the cold hard truths that you cant spend your way out off recession without inflation and unemployment. Not that they listened. I can't help think that Starmer should be doing that with his massive majority.
I find it astonishing that ideas that were demonstrated to be wrong in tbe 70s are considered rational today - being massively in debt. Wanting to borrow much more, but also wanting to stuck 2 fingers up and the lenders. Tony Benn literally got laughed at in Cabinet and had to admit he couldn't answer the basic questions about how his ideas would work. (Becaise they were mad and wouldn't work.)
Well worth a listen. I wouldn't have guessed that the 70s was a fascinating period of history but it was.
https://pdst.fm/e/traffic.megaphone.fm/GLT95980178...
It's astonishing how people are still demanding self contradictory things that were said then and proved wrong at the time.
There were people saying we shouldn't follow the orders of the lenders. To which the response was "If we stop borrowing we don't need to do what the lenders say." Of course they wanted to keep borrowing but still not do what the lenders wanted. (Andy Burnham still saying that today.)
Then there was the concept of a seige economy espoused by Benn and most of the party grass roots. The idea being we'd use tariffs to stop imports but that foreign countries would still let us export unhindered. A seige where the people outside wouldn't go into the castle, but would allow the people in tbe castle to come and go as they pleased. (Largely Trump economics.)
Then there was the whole concept of telling the IMF they were wrong whilst still demanding money and essentially trying to convince Europe they needed us more than we needed then. (2010's in the UK?)
Despite zero majority Callaghan was pretty good at telling his party the cold hard truths that you cant spend your way out off recession without inflation and unemployment. Not that they listened. I can't help think that Starmer should be doing that with his massive majority.
I find it astonishing that ideas that were demonstrated to be wrong in tbe 70s are considered rational today - being massively in debt. Wanting to borrow much more, but also wanting to stuck 2 fingers up and the lenders. Tony Benn literally got laughed at in Cabinet and had to admit he couldn't answer the basic questions about how his ideas would work. (Becaise they were mad and wouldn't work.)
Well worth a listen. I wouldn't have guessed that the 70s was a fascinating period of history but it was.
TRIH is worth a listen for almost every era but I agree that the 70's have been especially good. I've also liked watching pre-EEC videos where you can see free market conservatives debating socialists on the opposite side of where you might find them today.
Can you imagine any leader telling his party to get f
ked like this today?
Think Dom overegged how unpopular Healy's speech was. Certainly some boos at cuts, but doesn't look too bad. Agree with the descritpion of everyone in the 70's looking totally done-in though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpKz54bxXuU
The last time I can remember a PM facing down their membership was maybe Theresa May with her plan for funding elderly care via people's own assets. When she almost lost an election to Corbyn.
It has surprised me that Starmer hasn't used his large but fragile majority to smash some reforms through and accept that he'll be a one-term wonder. All he's managed so far is some tinkering at the edges and handing over more internet freedoms to US tech. I generally agree with Dom that letting members decide the party leader instead of MP's has been to the detriment of politics & leaves us at the mercy of activists who would put Corbyn/Truss into power and not see what the fuss was about.
Another parallel, though, is just how shallow most people's grasp of politics is. You might get a thread on PH with some obsessives arguing about trade minutiae pre/post-Brexit, or the best way to meet the UK's energy needs. But they each have the same vote as someone who gets their news from a tiktok meme, or will just vote for whoever increases their pension/dole handout.
Can you imagine any leader telling his party to get f
ked like this today?Think Dom overegged how unpopular Healy's speech was. Certainly some boos at cuts, but doesn't look too bad. Agree with the descritpion of everyone in the 70's looking totally done-in though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpKz54bxXuU
The last time I can remember a PM facing down their membership was maybe Theresa May with her plan for funding elderly care via people's own assets. When she almost lost an election to Corbyn.
It has surprised me that Starmer hasn't used his large but fragile majority to smash some reforms through and accept that he'll be a one-term wonder. All he's managed so far is some tinkering at the edges and handing over more internet freedoms to US tech. I generally agree with Dom that letting members decide the party leader instead of MP's has been to the detriment of politics & leaves us at the mercy of activists who would put Corbyn/Truss into power and not see what the fuss was about.
Another parallel, though, is just how shallow most people's grasp of politics is. You might get a thread on PH with some obsessives arguing about trade minutiae pre/post-Brexit, or the best way to meet the UK's energy needs. But they each have the same vote as someone who gets their news from a tiktok meme, or will just vote for whoever increases their pension/dole handout.
Edited by glazbagun on Thursday 30th April 20:15
glazbagun said:
It has surprised me that Starmer hasn't used his large but fragile majority to smash some reforms through and accept that he'll be a one-term wonder.
Yeah, I thought that too. I think it was likely the last chance for us to reverse the vicious circle. Nobody else will get a majority like that in time.Thanks for the vids, quality performances speaking truth to power (the membership). After the '75 Referendum episode I found the debates they discussed and was astonished at the quality of political discourse in the 70s. They were on a different level.
BikeBikeBIke said:
glazbagun said:
It has surprised me that Starmer hasn't used his large but fragile majority to smash some reforms through and accept that he'll be a one-term wonder.
Yeah, I thought that too. I think it was likely the last chance for us to reverse the vicious circle. Nobody else will get a majority like that in time.jmn said:
If anyone is interested in the IMF crisis which took place during the 1970s I can recommend the following book
Goodbye, Great Britain: The 1976 IMF Crisis
Book by Alec Cairncross and Kathleen Burk
Ta, Google suggests it's very readable. Quite pricey. Might have to be from the library.Goodbye, Great Britain: The 1976 IMF Crisis
Book by Alec Cairncross and Kathleen Burk
tangerine_sedge said:
Everyone agrees that the patient needs surgery, but nobody is willing to take the medicine.
This is the very essence of everything that's wrong in the current political climate. Not just over here, but in the US as well. Politicians are able to claim with relative impunity that everyone can have everything, for nothing. Usually if only [insert scapegoat here] wasn't ruining it for everyone else. And nothing ever comes back on them for making spurious promises or false claims.
There needs to be some sort of non-partisan watchdog that actively fact-checks politicians and forces them to retract or apologise for untruths, and punishes them for making obviously untrue statements.
A big part of why there is such disillusionment going round at the moment is that people have voted for impossible promises from each of the mainstream parties then felt robbed when they didn't get what they were told they'd get.
There's no way trust in politicians will ever be restored when they are allowed to promise the impossible and never face any comeuppance for it other than being voted out at the next election. It's just a cycle that repeats over and over, annoying the voters more and more each time.
Time was that the press would hold them to account to some extent, but these days much of the press is either a) owned by the people trying to influence the politics and therefore happy to let some of the lies stand - or even perpetuate them; or b) scared of being sued for reporting the truth by politicians with huge egos and deep-pocketed backers.
tangerine_sedge said:
The public schools thread is 508 pages long. Imagine the collective PH meltdown if Starmer actually attempted any proper reforms. Everyone agrees that the patient needs surgery, but nobody is willing to take the medicine.
Which ignores that removing VAT from public schools is a fking stupid policy steeped in ideology rather than economic necessity. It's not a net benefit to the exchequer - it's driving schools out of business, school staff out of work, pupils into an already overburdened state sector...It's the last thing to raise when talking about "taking medicine" because that's the last reason the government enacted the policy! in fact if anything they've managed to move the needle in the oppostite direction.
By all means tell us no-one is prepared to be the subject of more tax or less benefit, but the public school tax measure is nothing like a rational example of such.
FNG said:
Which ignores that removing VAT from public schools is a fking stupid policy steeped in ideology rather than economic necessity. It's not a net benefit to the exchequer - it's driving schools out of business, school staff out of work, pupils into an already overburdened state sector...
It's the last thing to raise when talking about "taking medicine" because that's the last reason the government enacted the policy! in fact if anything they've managed to move the needle in the oppostite direction.
By all means tell us no-one is prepared to be the subject of more tax or less benefit, but the public school tax measure is nothing like a rational example of such.
This in spades.king stupid policy steeped in ideology rather than economic necessity. It's not a net benefit to the exchequer - it's driving schools out of business, school staff out of work, pupils into an already overburdened state sector...It's the last thing to raise when talking about "taking medicine" because that's the last reason the government enacted the policy! in fact if anything they've managed to move the needle in the oppostite direction.
By all means tell us no-one is prepared to be the subject of more tax or less benefit, but the public school tax measure is nothing like a rational example of such.
See also the 50% tax rate.
FNG said:
tangerine_sedge said:
The public schools thread is 508 pages long. Imagine the collective PH meltdown if Starmer actually attempted any proper reforms. Everyone agrees that the patient needs surgery, but nobody is willing to take the medicine.
Which ignores that removing VAT from public schools is a fking stupid policy steeped in ideology rather than economic necessity. It's not a net benefit to the exchequer - it's driving schools out of business, school staff out of work, pupils into an already overburdened state sector...It's the last thing to raise when talking about "taking medicine" because that's the last reason the government enacted the policy! in fact if anything they've managed to move the needle in the oppostite direction.
By all means tell us no-one is prepared to be the subject of more tax or less benefit, but the public school tax measure is nothing like a rational example of such.
Imagine the pages of outrage if this government upped everyones Income taxes by 10% in order to pay down the public debt, or introduced fees to book a Doctors appointment, removed the triple-lock on pensions or removed the planning laws in a bid to accelerate house building and green-energy initiatives etc etc.
BikeBikeBIke said:
Ta, Google suggests it's very readable. Quite pricey. Might have to be from the library.
They do turn up second hand from time to time.Having read it a couple of times now there are some rather worrying parallels between what was going on then, and the situation now.
tangerine_sedge said:
FNG said:
tangerine_sedge said:
The public schools thread is 508 pages long. Imagine the collective PH meltdown if Starmer actually attempted any proper reforms. Everyone agrees that the patient needs surgery, but nobody is willing to take the medicine.
Which ignores that removing VAT from public schools is a fking stupid policy steeped in ideology rather than economic necessity. It's not a net benefit to the exchequer - it's driving schools out of business, school staff out of work, pupils into an already overburdened state sector...It's the last thing to raise when talking about "taking medicine" because that's the last reason the government enacted the policy! in fact if anything they've managed to move the needle in the oppostite direction.
By all means tell us no-one is prepared to be the subject of more tax or less benefit, but the public school tax measure is nothing like a rational example of such.
Imagine the pages of outrage if this government upped everyones Income taxes by 10% in order to pay down the public debt, or introduced fees to book a Doctors appointment, removed the triple-lock on pensions or removed the planning laws in a bid to accelerate house building and green-energy initiatives etc etc.
And if taxes raised by 10% I'd expect there to be howls of outrage across the political spectrum - who wouldn't?
But I think if measures were taken that truly were "taking your medicine" and were well thought out steps to reduce benefit reliance, increase growth, expand the economy and reform our bloated public services, you'd find the threads would be just as large but the reception would be way more favourable.
Shame this government is intellectually and ideologically opposed to anything that would qualify for the above though isn't it?
tangerine_sedge said:
And you prove my point precisely - the School VAT tax impacts a relatively small but massively vocal section of the public. Now imagine a scenario in which a government policy impacted a larger portion of the public.
Imagine the pages of outrage if this government upped everyones Income taxes by 10% in order to pay down the public debt, or introduced fees to book a Doctors appointment, removed the triple-lock on pensions or removed the planning laws in a bid to accelerate house building and green-energy initiatives etc etc.
He's (rightly) saying it's a crap example becaise it's counter productive and pointless. Things that genuinely help would be much harder to logically argue with. Imagine the pages of outrage if this government upped everyones Income taxes by 10% in order to pay down the public debt, or introduced fees to book a Doctors appointment, removed the triple-lock on pensions or removed the planning laws in a bid to accelerate house building and green-energy initiatives etc etc.
But yes, cuts will be very, very unpopular, which is why governments consistently choose to keep going until we hit the buffers.
jmn said:
They do turn up second hand from time to time.
Having read it a couple of times now there are some rather worrying parallels between what was going on then, and the situation now.
It's seems almost identical. People mindlessly saying "keep spending" and Callaghan and Healey patiently explaining why that couldn't fly. Then they got Benn in a room with Cabinet and got him to explain how, if they did it his way,it would all work. And of course, he couldn't. Cabinet laughed and he folded.Having read it a couple of times now there are some rather worrying parallels between what was going on then, and the situation now.
Could be this government except Starmer and Reeves don't have the moral courage of Callaghan and Healey to speak truth to their back benchers. The debates were the same as today's PH debates: "Spend more." "How will that work?" "I don't know, just stop being right wing and spend more."
FNG said:
And you miss mine. The reason that thread is so long is because it's ideological and financially illiterate. No wonder people are commenting on it, there's much to comment on.
And if taxes raised by 10% I'd expect there to be howls of outrage across the political spectrum - who wouldn't?
But I think if measures were taken that truly were "taking your medicine" and were well thought out steps to reduce benefit reliance, increase growth, expand the economy and reform our bloated public services, you'd find the threads would be just as large but the reception would be way more favourable.
Shame this government is intellectually and ideologically opposed to anything that would qualify for the above though isn't it?
Sounds like other people should pay to reduce the debt/deficit then?And if taxes raised by 10% I'd expect there to be howls of outrage across the political spectrum - who wouldn't?
But I think if measures were taken that truly were "taking your medicine" and were well thought out steps to reduce benefit reliance, increase growth, expand the economy and reform our bloated public services, you'd find the threads would be just as large but the reception would be way more favourable.
Shame this government is intellectually and ideologically opposed to anything that would qualify for the above though isn't it?
BikeBikeBIke said:
It's seems almost identical. People mindlessly saying "keep spending" and Callaghan and Healey patiently explaining why that couldn't fly. Then they got Benn in a room with Cabinet and got him to explain how, if they did it his way,it would all work. And of course, he couldn't. Cabinet laughed and he folded.
I'm not familiar with the book you're summarising, but that strikes me as a rather one-sided telling.Not surprisingly, Benn's account doesn't quite match the "they got Benn in a room with Cabinet and got him to explain how, if they did it his way,it would all work. And of course, he couldn't. Cabinet laughed and he folded" portrayal.
More neutrally, that's not how Anthony Crosland or Roy Jenkins - both major figures on the right of the party and neither supporters of Benn's ideology - report the cabinet rows around the IMF loan and its conditions.
The fissure wasn't that Benn couldn't explain how his six-point memorandum would work in socio-economic terms - it's that to make it work would require crossing the political red lines that Callaghan and Healey had set themselves. Benn's alternative required essentially ending the 'special relationship' with the Americans and dragging the EEC in as a bargaining chip against the IMF. It amounted to a radical programme of economic nationalism to 'reindustrialise Britain'.
Healey and Callaghan didn't approve of it because they were already signed up monetarists and wanted to preserve the global economic status quo. Crosland and Jenkins gave Benn support for presenting his idea to cabinet because they felt that the government should at least hear an alternative before just nodding in the IMF loan and its terms. Crosland, however much he opposed Benn's general stance, was also personally aghast at the prospect of breaking the social contract and wanted to be sure that there was no viable compromise.
hondajack85 said:
Its interesting that everyone always blames labour for economic issues but they are rarely in power. Surely the other dopey bds have caused most problems.
In recent years they've both been as bad as each other, haven't they? Before my time but even in the past wasn't Heath pretty spendy?ds have caused most problems.
2xChevrons said:
I'm not familiar with the book you're summarising, but that strikes me as a rather one-sided telling.
Not surprisingly, Benn's account doesn't quite match the "they got Benn in a room with Cabinet and got him to explain how, if they did it his way,it would all work. And of course, he couldn't. Cabinet laughed and he folded" portrayal.
I'm pretty sure the laughing bit came from Benn's diary, because Callaghan told them to stop laughing.Not surprisingly, Benn's account doesn't quite match the "they got Benn in a room with Cabinet and got him to explain how, if they did it his way,it would all work. And of course, he couldn't. Cabinet laughed and he folded" portrayal.
And no, I don't think there was an alternative case that worked. It's not really up for debate, the only way to borrow money was to take the actions the lenders required. The whole "they need us more than we need them" seige economy logic was just total b
ks.I'd be interested to hear the alternative case.
If you shut down imports with tariffs then why wouldn't other countries shut down your exports?
If you close your economy to the outside world then who do you borrow money from?
Edited by BikeBikeBIke on Friday 1st May 19:18
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff