Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

Grammar alert


lol

Third World Thatcherite Britain and the Grab for North Sea Oil
oil_rig

Last week both David Cameron and Alex Salmond held separate meetings in Scotland with the petrochemical companies in order to discuss the vital question of the ownership and future of North Sea oil. This is a vital issue. The Scots Nationalists I’ve talked to in the past have all been of the belief that not only should an independent Scotland have a right to the oil reserves off its coast, but that this would support the newly independent nation’s economy. Although this wasn’t mentioned in the news reports, Britain faces the same question. If Britain does not retain revenues from the North Sea if Scotland leaves the UK, then the British economy will plummet. It’s a question of economic survival.

I was taught at school that Britain has a ‘third-world economy’. This meant that Britain was like the various nations of the Developing World in that its economy was heavily based on primary industry. In the Developing World these industries were either mining – the extraction and production of diamonds, for example, or copper in the African Copper Belt, or the various nations around the world specialising in a particular agricultural product – groundnuts, bananas, coffee and so on. In Britain in the primary industry that fundamentally supports the country’s prosperity was North Sea oil.

Third World Britain

Under the Thatcher experiment, Britain’s underlying economic decline has continued and gathered pace. Only North Sea revenues now disguise its true extent. Without them it would be impossible to sustain the living standards which the working population currently enjoys. Britain’s present levels of employment, industrial activity and public services are all being paid for on borrowed time. (p. 20).

They then survey the way the Thatcher government effectively devastated the UK economy, while Labour unfairly got the blame for economic mismanagement.

It is worth emphasising how disastrous Tory economic policies have been for Britain in purely economic terms. The Tory Party has never succeeded in cultivating an image of compassion or concern for social justice: but at least, so the convention goes, it can be relied on to promote ‘sound’ economic policies and generally do the things that are in the interests of business growth. The Labour Party, by contrast, seems to have a acquired a reputation for economic mismanagement. The really remarkable achievement of the Thatcher Governments has been to find a set of policies which, while designed to make ‘economic efficiency’ the overriding objective in almost every sphere or our lives, has actually had the effect of making our economy less efficient - as well as having all the more predictable results such as a huge increase in social deprivation, inequality, injustice and division. As a result we are now in a situation where socialist economic and industrial policies offer the only serious hope not only of healing deep social divisions but also of reconstructing a viable and efficient economy.

Employment levels in manufacturing, construction and the public services plummeted after 1979. The international climate worsened, it is true, following the oil price rises of that year. All the major Western countries have faced increased unemployment during this period. But in Britain’s case, government policies have played an almost uniquely important part in creating a fall in national output and an increase in unemployment. By pursuing exceptionally high interest rates as part of the attempt to reduce money supply growth and inflation, and then letting the market determine the level of the exchange rate, the Tory Government precipitated a massive crisis in the manufacturing sector in the period 1979-81 – especially among companies which were relatively dependent on export markets or which had recently expanded investment or stocks in anticipation of sales growth. Meanwhile attempts to reduce public spending and borrowing resulted in a further deflationary effect: there was a particularly severe impact on employment as capital projects and welfare services were sacrificed to pay for the escalating costs of increasing unemployment – not merely a vicious circle but an insane one.

If we look at another traditional measure of economic success or failure, the balance of payments, we see a similar story. Since 1982, a surplus on manufactured goods has been replaced by large annual deficits – the first such deficits since the Industrial Revolution. Imports and import penetration have risen sharply in virtually every sector of manufacturing. These imports have, of course, been paid for out of oil revenues. But declining oil revenues will no longer be able to offset the growing manufacturing trade deficit in the late 1980s and 1990s.

They then go on to consider some of the contributing causes to British industrial decline, such as the price of British goods, lack of investment in research and development, and the lack of an education workforce, some of which is now extremely dated.

Nevertheless, I think the main point is still valid. Thatcher destroyed the British industrial base, and it is still only North Sea oil revenues, which is propping the economy up, despite the Tory and New Labour attempt to promote the financial sector. If Britain loses these revenues, then the British economy will collapse. My guess is that we would still be in the Developed World, but go from one of the most prosperous to one of the least.

The result of this would a further massive collapse in living standards, accompanied by bitter discontent. In the Developing World, mass poverty traditionally gave rise to extremist political movements – Marxist revolutionary groups, and the various Fascist dictatorships like those of General Pinochet, Manuel Noriega et cetera ad nauseam used to contain and suppress them. The same is likely to arise in Britain. This would effectively discredit all of the main political parties, as all of them have been influenced to a greater or lesser extent by Thatcher’s legacy. But those most effected would be the Tories as Thatcher’s party.

No wonder Cameron was up in Scotland last week trying to keep hold of North Sea oil. If that goes, then so does a large part of British prosperity and the Conservatives/ Thatcher’s image as the party of British prosperity.

That's a really balanced and well thought out article gf.

Who wrote it, Lenin?

WikiLeaks cables: Mervyn King had doubts over Cameron and Osborne
Diplomatic memos reveal Bank governor thought top Conservatives lacked experience to deal with deficit

David Leigh and Patrick Wintour
The Guardian, Tuesday 30 November 2010 23.00 GMT

The head of the Bank of England privately criticised David Cameron and George Osborne for their lack of experience, the lack of depth in their inner circle and their tendency to think about issues only in terms of their electoral impact, according to leaked US embassy cables.

Mervyn King told the US ambassador, Louis Susman, he had held private meetings with the two Conservative politicians before the election to urge them to draw up a detailed plan to reduce the deficit.

He said the pair operated too much within a narrow circle and "had a tendency to think about issues only in terms of politics, and how they might affect Tory electorability". He also predicted that economic recovery would be "a long drawn-out process", since Britain had not been through an economic restructuring.

His apparent pressure on the Tories, a few months before the election, gives further credence to the claim that King was central in persuading leading coalition figures to back a far more dramatic deficit-reduction programme than any politician advocated during the election campaign. He has recently been criticised by members of the Bank's monetary policy committee for straying into politics.

The cables released today also disclose:

• Internal Tory polling found Osborne lacked gravitas with the public, partly due to his "high-pitched vocal delivery". As a result, Cameron, not Osborne, made the special address on the economic crisis to the party conference in the autumn of 2008.

• The defence secretary, Liam Fox, told the Americans that the Tories would be tougher on Pakistan because they were less reliant on votes from the Pakistani community than Labour.

• King believes Europe's sovereign debt crisis will accelerate political union. "Leaders in Germany and France have recognised that allowing monetary union to happen without corresponding political cohesion was a mistake and one that needed to be rectified," King told American diplomats.

• The Liberal Democrats' two top strategists, Polly Mackenzie and Chris Saunders, now both working in government, planned to run a fierce anti-Cameron election campaign, describing him as "out of touch with real life". The death of Cameron's son Ivan forced them to drop the plan since it "eliminated these vulnerabilities".

• Referring to Muslim extremists in Britain from Pakistan, Cameron told the Americans at a meeting in April 2009 that under Labour "we let in a lot of crazies and did not wake up early enough".

There is a broad expectation that the governor of the Bank of England will behave with political neutrality, and will not seek to interfere directly in macro-economic policy, the preserve of the Treasury and politicians. Yet the cables reveal he pressed Cameron for details of his deficit plan.

"King expressed great concern about Conservative leaders' lack of experience," Susman wrote in his classified dispatch to the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, after his 16 February meeting with the governor. "[He] opined that party leader David Cameron and shadow chancellor George Osborne have not fully grasped the pressures they will face from different groups when attempting to cut spending.

"In recent meetings with [Cameron and Osborne], he has pressed for details about how they plan to tackle the debt but received only generalities in return. Both Cameron and Osborne have a tendency to think about issues only in terms of politics and how they might affect Tory electorability.

"King also expressed concern about the Tory party's lack of depth. Cameron and Osborne have only a few advisers and seemed resistant to reaching out beyond their small inner circle."

In a section headed "Conservatives: not prepared", the ambassador said King had stated that "hundreds of government officials will make pleas of why their budgets should not be reduced".

A Bank spokeswoman responded tonight: "The governor has a very effective working relationship with the prime minister and the chancellor."

King's defenders would argue he was not seeking to press the Conservatives to follow a specific deficit path, but given the state of the markets it would be legitimate for him to ask them to put detailed plans in place. Arguably this scepticism over the ability of Osborne and Cameron to press ahead with a strong deficit reduction plan has proved unfounded since they have announced a programme far more ambitious than expected.

King told Susman he had fears the "Cameron/Osborne partnership was not unlike the Tony Blair/Gordon Brown team of New Labour's early years, when both worked well together when part of the opposition party, but fissures developed – for many reasons – once Labour was in power. Similar tensions could arise if Cameron and Osborne disagreed on how to handle the deficit, and the lack of depth in their inner circle would aggravate the situation."

The governor was gloomy about economic prospects, Susman reported. "It was hard to be optimistic about recovery in 2010," King argued, and noted "a double-dip recession was still a possibility".

It is known that King, in the wake of the coalition's formation, played a role in persuading the Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg, that major steps were needed to prevent bond traders pulling the plug on the British economy after the collapse of confidence in other debt-ridden countries, such as Greece.

Accounts of the coalition negotiations have also revealed that Osborne, in his talks with the Lib Dems, said he had the support of King for his deficit programme. But it is the first time it has been revealed King pressed for a detailed plan.

The cables also reveal King was not the only source of disobliging remarks about the Tory leadership, according to Susman.

The rightwing Conservative MP for Sevenoaks and now Conservative deputy chairman, Michael Fallon, also confided his doubts to US diplomats.

His remarks were detailed in a cable sent in October 2008 titled: "Conservative party caught flat-footed by Brown's quick manoeuvres on financial crisis, says senior Tory MP".

It stated: "The Tories' response to the crisis has been regrettably tepid … The Conservative party felt the absence of a strong shadow chancellor and the party's counter-proposals to Labour's plans have been 'all over the place'. Fallon particularly criticised Osborne's op-ed piece in the October 28 Daily Telegraph as a 'weak', almost laughable, response to the economic crisis."

Mark Tokola, the embassy's economic minister at the time, concluded: "Fallon's comments to us reflected Conservative frustration – and some grudging admiration – for prime minister Brown's skill in seizing the high ground during the economic crisis.

Noo Labour in office 1997 to 2010


result =

Similar letters of condolence were written by previous tory incumbents of the job on leaving office.

Look back to Reggie M.

Maudling's letter was less blunt and more apologetic. The recent Labour version was almost triumphant. One of the reasons was that Labour brought forward payments for projects and signed new projects to make sure there was no money and reduce the room for manouver for the new government.

Projects!!!!!!!! dont you mean BANKS.

Haze,

Check you facts and period.

No. Labour signed PFF and made promises sme of which the coalition eventually managed to cancel.

GF,


That was a fair appraisal of the record and effects of the Thatcher legacy and some of the coalition are still swimming with that mindset.

They should be precised and trailed on placards and hoardings etc. at time of the next election.

Well...there you go...The Ruskies have taken over Ukraine...shades of Hitler...and Poland...1939....those poor ethnic Germans..they needed saving didn't they....same thing here...

Ther Ukrainians are going to need arms supplies...surface to surface...surface to air...highly mobile...small batteries....

why not try discussing what is going on in ukraine?
we have the russian bully-boys on one side, and seemingly a bunch of anarchists and neo-nazis on the other
thus, the implications of what might happen there are infinitely more important and worthy of our attention than the constant stream of nonsense you guys on your soapboxes keep throwing about


lets face it, neither labour nor the conservatives have any decent let alone strong leadership, or even worthwhile policies ..... come May next year, there'll probably be a t/o of about 55% and we'll end up with some dreadful gov't or other

how labour supporters must rue voting for the ineffectual brother who is "owned" by the militant unions

There are only a small bunch of so called Nazis.....or are they nazis ?....every country has some of them...even Britain and the USA...oil might start to shoot up : that's a big possibility...elections...that's what should be happening in the Ukraine...sad to see such shambles out there..

I think in their circumstances I would rely on luck and hope that Russia is satisfied with the Crimea as a mouthful.

Can see Crimea separating from the rest and attempting to run as a individual state under the financial thumb of Putin.

Not sure what the economic effect will be, or what the share out of their debt will be.

I think in their circumstances I would rely on luck and hope that Russia is satisfied with the Crimea as a mouthful.

Can see Crimea separating from the rest and attempting to run as a individual state under the financial thumb of Putin.

Not sure what the economic effect will be, or what the share out of their debt will be.

Nazi Germany did exactly the same thing...Russia...today

There are a large number of right wing nationalists. It was these groups that were the driving force during the protest recently and almost certainly they were the ones who were armed and shot at the police. Some of the members of these groups have already been given jobs in the new government.

There has been a split between the right wing nationalists and the ethnic Russians due to the western area supporting the Nazis in the war. It is not for nothing that the eastern part and the Russians call the protestors fascists.

They are not all extremists but the people you see breaking the law will be...and I have to say : their mps voted the expresident out ......