Ding Dong The Witch is Dead.

vills wrote:

Dimples wrote:

vills wrote:The alternative to Monetarism, Thatcherism, and social division..?

Any danger of you answering the question and perhaps suggesting why the Conservative party under Heath and the Labour party under Wilson and Callaghan were all unable to solve the crises of the 1970s?

Well I solved it by leaving.

Other countries govts didn't attack their own people with the vindictiveness of Thatcher and her henchmen.

And are thereby doing better today;

Without this legacy of hatred.

You don't cure an illness by killing the patient.

vills wrote:"So, in other words, you don't know what the solution was but you'll sit back and condemn the person who brought the country out of the mess it was in during the 1970s."

Yes.

She exaggerated the social upheavals of the post-war years to push the right-wing agenda of oppression.

With the results we see today in inequality, poverty, and social immobility.

Dimples wrote:

vills wrote:"So, in other words, you don't know what the solution was but you'll sit back and condemn the person who brought the country out of the mess it was in during the 1970s."

Yes.

She exaggerated the social upheavals of the post-war years to push the right-wing agenda of oppression.

With the results we see today in inequality, poverty, and social immobility.

Sorry, but that's just nonsense. Look at any decade of the 20th century, 19th century, 18th century and keep going back as far as you like and you will see social inequality, poverty and social immobility. It is not a creation of the 1980s.

Opportunities for self improvement and higher spending power increased enormously in the post war era, with working class people for the first time becoming able to become consumers as well as manufacturers of goods and services, including high-ticket items such as white goods, cars and travel.

... and much as I disagreed with the widespread sale of local authority housing stock without replacing it with appropriate social housing, the chance to buy their council house enabled thousands to achieve the very social mobility that you now deny exists.

Ali wrote:

Dimples wrote:

vills wrote:"So, in other words, you don't know what the solution was but you'll sit back and condemn the person who brought the country out of the mess it was in during the 1970s."

Yes.

She exaggerated the social upheavals of the post-war years to push the right-wing agenda of oppression.

With the results we see today in inequality, poverty, and social immobility.

Sorry, but that's just nonsense. Look at any decade of the 20th century, 19th century, 18th century and keep going back as far as you like and you will see social inequality, poverty and social immobility. It is not a creation of the 1980s.

Opportunities for self improvement and higher spending power increased enormously in the post war era, with working class people for the first time becoming able to become consumers as well as manufacturers of goods and services, including high-ticket items such as white goods, cars and travel.

... and much as I disagreed with the widespread sale of local authority housing stock without replacing it with appropriate social housing, the chance to buy their council house enabled thousands to achieve the very social mobility that you now deny exists.

Some would argue that social mobility doesn't actually exist.

vills wrote:We're even behind the US!

Dimples wrote:

vills wrote:We're even behind the US!

What's this "we" of which you speak? I thought you said you'd solved the problems of the 1970s "by leaving"....

vills wrote:

Dimples wrote:

vills wrote:We're even behind the US!

What's this "we" of which you speak? I thought you said you'd solved the problems of the 1970s "by leaving"....

Sorry! In forum context I consider myself a Brit!

Dimples wrote:

Ali wrote:

Dimples wrote:

vills wrote:"So, in other words, you don't know what the solution was but you'll sit back and condemn the person who brought the country out of the mess it was in during the 1970s."

Yes.

She exaggerated the social upheavals of the post-war years to push the right-wing agenda of oppression.

With the results we see today in inequality, poverty, and social immobility.

Sorry, but that's just nonsense. Look at any decade of the 20th century, 19th century, 18th century and keep going back as far as you like and you will see social inequality, poverty and social immobility. It is not a creation of the 1980s.

Opportunities for self improvement and higher spending power increased enormously in the post war era, with working class people for the first time becoming able to become consumers as well as manufacturers of goods and services, including high-ticket items such as white goods, cars and travel.

... and much as I disagreed with the widespread sale of local authority housing stock without replacing it with appropriate social housing, the chance to buy their council house enabled thousands to achieve the very social mobility that you now deny exists.

Some would argue that social mobility doesn't actually exist.

It does exist. It just isn't universal.

It may take 2 or 3 generations in a family for it to become apparent but I am sure that if you asked people on here or elsewhere if their own lives are comparable to those of their grandparents (or great-grandparents if they knew them), I think there's a very fair chance that they are better off and have more disposable income than their grandparents did. However, assets and personal wealth are not the only determinants of social mobility and it's worth pointing out that opportunities for acquiring cultural and social capital, as well as economic capital, are far higher now than previously due to the advantages of educational opportunities and social networking (and no, I don't mean Facebook )

Ali wrote:

Dimples wrote:

Ali wrote:

Some would argue that social mobility doesn't actually exist.

It does exist. It just isn't universal.

It may take 2 or 3 generations in a family for it to become apparent but I am sure that if you asked people on here or elsewhere if their own lives are comparable to those of their grandparents (or great-grandparents if they knew them), I think there's a very fair chance that they are better off and have more disposable income than their grandparents did. However, assets and personal wealth are not the only determinants of social mobility and it's worth pointing out that opportunities for acquiring cultural and social capital, as well as economic capital, are far higher now than previously due to the advantages of educational opportunities and social networking (and no, I don't mean Facebook )

Well I'm not, both sets of grandparents bought their own homes. I live in social housing. to be honest, I think nowadays it's going backwards rather than forwards for a great deal of people. The cost of buying a house is prohibitative for many people now hence why there is such a clamour for what affordable homes are available.

Dimples wrote:

Henry wrote:The country is "on its knees" now, in part because of financial deregulation set in train by Thatcher. I can't quite see the point you are making.

How can you not see that I was explaining what I meant by "on its knees"? You're a supposedly intelligent guy and surely you can't be entirely oblivious to the state the country was in in the 1970s?

More accurately is the fact that you and Vils seem both to be in a state of complete denial about the 1970s and the mess the country was in back then. That's the only reason why you can't see the point I'm making.

Dimples wrote:

Ali wrote:

Dimples wrote:

It does exist. It just isn't universal.

It may take 2 or 3 generations in a family for it to become apparent but I am sure that if you asked people on here or elsewhere if their own lives are comparable to those of their grandparents (or great-grandparents if they knew them), I think there's a very fair chance that they are better off and have more disposable income than their grandparents did. However, assets and personal wealth are not the only determinants of social mobility and it's worth pointing out that opportunities for acquiring cultural and social capital, as well as economic capital, are far higher now than previously due to the advantages of educational opportunities and social networking (and no, I don't mean Facebook )

Well I'm not, both sets of grandparents bought their own homes. I live in social housing. to be honest, I think nowadays it's going backwards rather than forwards for a great deal of people. The cost of buying a house is prohibitative for many people now hence why there is such a clamour for what affordable homes are available.

Well, I don't agree that it's definitively going backwards but you make a good point about the cost of buying being prohibitive these days and that's why many people have gone back to renting. You also have to allow for the individual "making good" in spite of the prevailing economic circumstances though.

I know from my own family background that social mobility does exist and whilst sometimes it comes as a result of a gamble paying off, sometimes it comes as a consequence of dogged hard work, making the most of opportunities which present themselves and being able to take advantage of times of economic boom. It remains to be seen whether that social mobility can be sustained during our own children's lifetimes and beyond though.

Dimples wrote:

Ali wrote:

Dimples wrote:

Ali wrote:

Some would argue that social mobility doesn't actually exist.

It does exist. It just isn't universal.

It may take 2 or 3 generations in a family for it to become apparent but I am sure that if you asked people on here or elsewhere if their own lives are comparable to those of their grandparents (or great-grandparents if they knew them), I think there's a very fair chance that they are better off and have more disposable income than their grandparents did. However, assets and personal wealth are not the only determinants of social mobility and it's worth pointing out that opportunities for acquiring cultural and social capital, as well as economic capital, are far higher now than previously due to the advantages of educational opportunities and social networking (and no, I don't mean Facebook )

Well I'm not, both sets of grandparents bought their own homes. I live in social housing. to be honest, I think nowadays it's going backwards rather than forwards for a great deal of people. The cost of buying a house is prohibitative for many people now hence why there is such a clamour for what affordable homes are available.

Well, I don't agree that it's definitively going backwards but you make a good point about the cost of buying being prohibitive these days and that's why many people have gone back to renting. You also have to allow for the individual "making good" in spite of the prevailing economic circumstances though.

I know from my own family background that social mobility does exist and whilst sometimes it comes as a result of a gamble paying off, sometimes it comes as a consequence of dogged hard work, making the most of opportunities which present themselves and being able to take advantage of times of economic boom. It remains to be seen whether that social mobility can be sustained during our own children's lifetimes and beyond though.

Ali wrote:

Dimples wrote:

Ali wrote:

Well I'm not, both sets of grandparents bought their own homes. I live in social housing. to be honest, I think nowadays it's going backwards rather than forwards for a great deal of people. The cost of buying a house is prohibitative for many people now hence why there is such a clamour for what affordable homes are available.

Well, I don't agree that it's definitively going backwards but you make a good point about the cost of buying being prohibitive these days and that's why many people have gone back to renting. You also have to allow for the individual "making good" in spite of the prevailing economic circumstances though.

I know from my own family background that social mobility does exist and whilst sometimes it comes as a result of a gamble paying off, sometimes it comes as a consequence of dogged hard work, making the most of opportunities which present themselves and being able to take advantage of times of economic boom. It remains to be seen whether that social mobility can be sustained during our own children's lifetimes and beyond though.

Dogged hard work, see I have a problem with that because it suggests that people who never achieve social mobility don't work hard and nothing can be further from the truth. Many of these people work damn hard, with long hours, unsocial hours etc but just never make it to the top.

The problem is that the higher you go up the ladder the fewer opportunities there is to go any higher and only the very best will succeed. The vast majority of people just end up staying put.

Henry wrote:Oh shit, Dimples, I accidentally deleted your post. I'm sorry but I don't how to get it back. Can you write it again?

Does it not occur to you that perhaps the rest of the voting population didn't much care for the prospect of "red-blooded socialism" and that such an idea was always likely to be doomed to fail? Even by the 1970s, the idea of active socialism in Britain was not really what the general public was accustomed to or aspired to - and still wasn't by the 1990s. It's probably why Tony Blair tried to carve out his "Third Way" and why socialists on the whole remain somewhat thwarted in Britain.

Dimples wrote:

Henry wrote:Oh shit, Dimples, I accidentally deleted your post. I'm sorry but I don't how to get it back. Can you write it again?

You mean this one?:

Does it not occur to you that perhaps the rest of the voting population didn't much care for the prospect of "red-blooded socialism" and that such an idea was always likely to be doomed to fail? Even by the 1970s, the idea of active socialism in Britain was not really what the general public was accustomed to or aspired to - and still wasn't by the 1990s. It's probably why Tony Blair tried to carve out his "Third Way" and why socialists on the whole remain somewhat thwarted in Britain.

Why of course...

jackb wrote:The chance for the workers to have decent housing health care buy white goods happened after the war under a labour government not under Thatcher.

Henry wrote:

Dimples wrote:

Henry wrote:Oh shit, Dimples, I accidentally deleted your post. I'm sorry but I don't how to get it back. Can you write it again?

You mean this one?:

Does it not occur to you that perhaps the rest of the voting population didn't much care for the prospect of "red-blooded socialism" and that such an idea was always likely to be doomed to fail? Even by the 1970s, the idea of active socialism in Britain was not really what the general public was accustomed to or aspired to - and still wasn't by the 1990s. It's probably why Tony Blair tried to carve out his "Third Way" and why socialists on the whole remain somewhat thwarted in Britain.

Why of course...

Thanks, to which I reply:

The people I represented did care for more socialism. Would you have had me betray them?