This Lineker thing

[BillyStubbsTears]

Argh!

That's the whole point of what I'm saying!

Because the Overton Window has moved significantly to the right of where it was 60 years ago.

Labour are further to the Right than the Wilson Government (Callaghan is a REALLY bad example as the lurch to the Right started under him.)

But the Tories are also to the Right of Thatcher & Major and WAY to the Right of Heath.

What you are doing is noticing that Labour moved to the Right but ignoring what the Tories have done, so you're assuming they are all the same.

[danumdon]

Labour made a very big issue out of Tory soft touch regulation of the Financial Industry, what did they do to rectify this when in power, or did they apply an even softer touch  requiring the superman efforts of Brown to “save the world”

[BillyStubbsTears]

Hopeless.

[danumdon]

Hopeless.

Well your reply certainly was, only like replying on your own terms, but then you do this pretty often so no change there then.

[BillyStubbsTears]

DD.

Go and read the exchange.

I've replied to your points with a critique of what I think has happened over the last half century.

Every time I've posted, you've ignored what I said and just continued your monologue.

If that's what you want to do, fine. Just don't get arksey when someone disengages.

[ravenrover]

Don't tell me about the press, I know who exactly read the papers
The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country
The Guardian is read by those who think they ought to run the country
The Times is read by those who do run the country
The Daily Mail is read by the wives of those who run the country
The Financial Times is read by those who own the country
The Morning Star is read by those who think the country should be run by another country
And The Daily Telegraph is read by those who think it already is
But what about the peoole who read The Sun?
Their readers don't care who runs the country as long as she's got big tits
Yes Minister

[Ldr]

Syd do you agree?

[Bentley Bullet]

DD.

Go and read the exchange.

I've replied to your points with a critique of what I think has happened over the last half century.

Every time I've posted, you've ignored what I said and just continued your monologue.

If that's what you want to do, fine. Just don't get arksey when someone disengages.

Don't get Bentley either.

[ncRover]

Argh!

That's the whole point of what I'm saying!

Because the Overton Window has moved significantly to the right of where it was 60 years ago.

Labour are further to the Right than the Wilson Government (Callaghan is a REALLY bad example as the lurch to the Right started under him.)

But the Tories are also to the Right of Thatcher & Major and WAY to the Right of Heath.

What you are doing is noticing that Labour moved to the Right but ignoring what the Tories have done, so you're assuming they are all the same.

Would you rather live now or 60 years ago?

[SydneyRover]

Syd do you agree?

With what?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Argh!

That's the whole point of what I'm saying!

Because the Overton Window has moved significantly to the right of where it was 60 years ago.

Labour are further to the Right than the Wilson Government (Callaghan is a REALLY bad example as the lurch to the Right started under him.)

But the Tories are also to the Right of Thatcher & Major and WAY to the Right of Heath.

What you are doing is noticing that Labour moved to the Right but ignoring what the Tories have done, so you're assuming they are all the same.

Would you rather live now or 60 years ago?

That's really not the question.

Nobody is saying that we should revert the economy back to 1960.

The point is we have a lot to learn from how the economic growth direction was managed in the period 1950-1980.

We had higher growth than we've had since, fairer distribution of that growth, much less severe recessions and because of all that, we got debt down more effectively.

The question isn't: Are we better off now than in 1960?

It is: Would we be better off now if we'd not had a revolutionary lurch to the right on economics in the 1980s?

[scawsby steve]

The 1960s was a great era for working class people. There was no unemployment, and far less poverty than today.

Foodbanks were unheard of.

[danumdon]

Argh!

That's the whole point of what I'm saying!

Because the Overton Window has moved significantly to the right of where it was 60 years ago.

Labour are further to the Right than the Wilson Government (Callaghan is a REALLY bad example as the lurch to the Right started under him.)

But the Tories are also to the Right of Thatcher & Major and WAY to the Right of Heath.

What you are doing is noticing that Labour moved to the Right but ignoring what the Tories have done, so you're assuming they are all the same.

Would you rather live now or 60 years ago?

That's really not the question.

Nobody is saying that we should revert the economy back to 1960.

The point is we have a lot to learn from how the economic growth direction was managed in the period 1950-1980.

We had higher growth than we've had since, fairer distribution of that growth, much less severe recessions and because of all that, we got debt down more effectively.

The question isn't: Are we better off now than in 1960?

It is: Would we be better off now if we'd not had a revolutionary lurch to the right on economics in the 1980s?

Explain to us where the economy was going prior to "a revolutionary lurch to the right on economics in the 1980s?"

[ncRover]

Yep conveniently skipped the 1970s there 

[BillyStubbsTears]

Not skipping anything.

There are some salutary lessons from the 1970s. And also a lot of b*llocks talked about it. The Thatcherites did a superb job of writing the history of the 1970s as being so awful that we had to have a massive change.

Was it really that bad?

Economic growth was 2.6% per annum. We haven't managed that in any decade since.

Unemployment never went above 5.6%. In the subsequent 35 years, it was only below that level in 9 years (all of them under Blair and Brown by the way).

Real wage growth was 2.9% per annum. It's never hit that level since and has been nearly zero for the past 15 years.

Of course there was a serious inflation problem. Primarily that was caused by

a) The unilateral decision of the USA to kill the Bretton Woods exchange rate system.
b) The overnight quadrupling of the price of oil by OPEC.
c) The stupid mistake of the Heath Govt of ignoring Keynesian principles and pouring money into an already overheating economy in the Barber Boom.

Inflation had been brought down drastically by the end of the 70s, without causing a huge spike in unemployment or a dip in living standards.

Am I missing something you wanted to point out?

[Bentley Bullet]

The '70s weren't that bad? You never knew whether to take any snap to work because half the time you didn't know if you were gonna walk out on bloody strike!

[drfchound]

I don’t remember the seventies as being particularly great.
Inflation at 20% and rarely below 10%.
Unemployment  at over 1.5million.
It seemed that one group or another was always on strike too.
Labour were in power from 1974 to 79.
To suggest that they drastically reduced unemployment is a twist of what really happened.
At the start of the 70s unemployment was around 600,00 and it rose to 1.5million under Labour before dropping back a little.
BST excuses the inflation rises partly due to OPEC prices rises but condemns the current government without giving any credit against the gas price rises brought about by the war in Ukraine.

[Bristol Red Rover]

I preferred MOTD last week. No commentary,  no tiresome analysis, no dad jokes, just straight from game to game, short, sweet, to point.

[BillyStubbsTears]

I preferred MOTD last week. No commentary,  no tiresome analysis, no dad jokes, just straight from game to game, short, sweet, to point.

You're obviously in the same place as John Redwood.

No chat.

Plenty of time for those replay thingies to show what happened with the penalisations.

https://twitter.com/johnredwood/status/1634687309940420608?s=20

[Colemans Left Hook]

I don’t remember the seventies as being particularly great.
Inflation at 20% and rarely below 10%.
Unemployment  at over 1.5million.
It seemed that one group or another was always on strike too.
Labour were in power from 1974 to 79.
To suggest that they drastically reduced unemployment is a twist of what really happened.
At the start of the 70s unemployment was around 600,00 and it rose to 1.5million under Labour before dropping back a little.
BST excuses the inflation rises partly due to OPEC prices rises but condemns the current government without giving any credit against the gas price rises brought about by the war in Ukraine.

well he was in nappies at the time

Abba eventually got into oil and lost a fortune.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/money-how-abba-actually-came-paid-oil-david-wylie

[SydneyRover]

Look who got a nice little number with the help of a friend in a high place

''BBC chair Richard Sharp ‘helped friend get paid job’ advising corporation
Caroline Daniel reportedly advanced by Sharp for role as adviser on editorial standards and impartiality

But not just any old job aye? I wonder if the same tactics will be used as before, deny and refute.

bunga-bunga lives on

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/mar/18/bbc-chair-richard-sharp-helped-friend-to-paid-job-advising-corporation

[BillyStubbsTears]

I don’t remember the seventies as being particularly great.
Inflation at 20% and rarely below 10%.
Unemployment  at over 1.5million.
It seemed that one group or another was always on strike too.
Labour were in power from 1974 to 79.
To suggest that they drastically reduced unemployment is a twist of what really happened.
At the start of the 70s unemployment was around 600,00 and it rose to 1.5million under Labour before dropping back a little.
BST excuses the inflation rises partly due to OPEC prices rises but condemns the current government without giving any credit against the gas price rises brought about by the war in Ukraine.

well he was in nappies at the time

Abba eventually got into oil and lost a fortune.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/money-how-abba-actually-came-paid-oil-david-wylie

A perfect example of why I have Hound on Ignore.

He's so obsessed with his idea of what he thinks I think, he puts wrong words in my mouth even when responding to the actual words I've written.

I did NOT say that Labour drastically reduced unemployment in the 1970s. (And by the way, it never got remotely close to 1.5million, but facts, eh?)

I'm also not sure who this BST is that Hound knows, who hasn't accepted that the Ukraine war and energy prices have been a big part of our current inflation problem. I'd like to meet him and tell him he's wrong. (But I don't actually think he exists outside Hound's rather embittered imagination.)

[normal rules]

Lineker will not present FA Cup quarter-final coverage as planned on Sunday after losing his voice.
The Lord moves in mysterious ways.

[belton rover]

I don’t remember the seventies as being particularly great.
Inflation at 20% and rarely below 10%.
Unemployment  at over 1.5million.
It seemed that one group or another was always on strike too.
Labour were in power from 1974 to 79.
To suggest that they drastically reduced unemployment is a twist of what really happened.
At the start of the 70s unemployment was around 600,00 and it rose to 1.5million under Labour before dropping back a little.
BST excuses the inflation rises partly due to OPEC prices rises but condemns the current government without giving any credit against the gas price rises brought about by the war in Ukraine.

well he was in nappies at the time

Abba eventually got into oil and lost a fortune.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/money-how-abba-actually-came-paid-oil-david-wylie

The Winner takes it Oil

[normal rules]

Money money money

[Bentley Bullet]

Esso S.

[danumdon]

I don’t remember the seventies as being particularly great.
Inflation at 20% and rarely below 10%.
Unemployment  at over 1.5million.
It seemed that one group or another was always on strike too.
Labour were in power from 1974 to 79.
To suggest that they drastically reduced unemployment is a twist of what really happened.
At the start of the 70s unemployment was around 600,00 and it rose to 1.5million under Labour before dropping back a little.
BST excuses the inflation rises partly due to OPEC prices rises but condemns the current government without giving any credit against the gas price rises brought about by the war in Ukraine.

well he was in nappies at the time

Abba eventually got into oil and lost a fortune.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/money-how-abba-actually-came-paid-oil-david-wylie

A perfect example of why I have Hound on Ignore.

He's so obsessed with his idea of what he thinks I think, he puts wrong words in my mouth even when responding to the actual words I've written.

I did NOT say that Labour drastically reduced unemployment in the 1970s. (And by the way, it never got remotely close to 1.5million, but facts, eh?)

I'm also not sure who this BST is that Hound knows, who hasn't accepted that the Ukraine war and energy prices have been a big part of our current inflation problem. I'd like to meet him and tell him he's wrong. (But I don't actually think he exists outside Hound's rather embittered imagination.)

I'm sorry but when you start referring to yourself in the third person then i just can't take anything you say seriously!!

[drfchound]

I don’t remember the seventies as being particularly great.
Inflation at 20% and rarely below 10%.
Unemployment  at over 1.5million.
It seemed that one group or another was always on strike too.
Labour were in power from 1974 to 79.
To suggest that they drastically reduced unemployment is a twist of what really happened.
At the start of the 70s unemployment was around 600,00 and it rose to 1.5million under Labour before dropping back a little.
BST excuses the inflation rises partly due to OPEC prices rises but condemns the current government without giving any credit against the gas price rises brought about by the war in Ukraine.

well he was in nappies at the time

Abba eventually got into oil and lost a fortune.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/money-how-abba-actually-came-paid-oil-david-wylie

A perfect example of why I have Hound on Ignore.

He's so obsessed with his idea of what he thinks I think, he puts wrong words in my mouth even when responding to the actual words I've written.

I did NOT say that Labour drastically reduced unemployment in the 1970s. (And by the way, it never got remotely close to 1.5million, but facts, eh?)

I'm also not sure who this BST is that Hound knows, who hasn't accepted that the Ukraine war and energy prices have been a big part of our current inflation problem. I'd like to meet him and tell him he's wrong. (But I don't actually think he exists outside Hound's rather embittered imagination.)

BST, both of you apparently, can you say the article below is a lie?


“In 1976, Britain faced financial crisis. The Labour government was forced to apply to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for a loan of nearly $4,000,000,000. IMF negotiators insisted on deep cuts in public expenditure, greatly affecting economic and social policy.
Within a year of Callaghan taking office, the narrow Labour majority was eliminated due to by-election defeats, prompting a vote of confidence which prevented the government's collapse and a general election from being called. In order to sustain the government, Labour formed the Lib-Lab pact in March 1977 and this remained in force for sixteen months. This minority government also managed to stay in power with unofficial deals with the Ulster Unionist Party and Scottish National Party.
By September 1978, economic growth was firmly re-established and inflation was below 10%, although unemployment now stood at a post-war high of 1,500,000. With most of the opinion polls showing a clear Labour lead, it was widely expected that Callaghan would call a general election that autumn, despite having another year to do so, in order to gain a majority and give his government the chance of surviving in office until 1983.
However, he resisted these calls and Britain began 1979 with Labour still in power and Callaghan still in charge, but his failure to call a general election during the autumn of 1978 would prove to be the end of this Labour government”

I suppose you will come up with some reason or another why it is all lies.

[BillyStubbsTears]

I don’t remember the seventies as being particularly great.
Inflation at 20% and rarely below 10%.
Unemployment  at over 1.5million.
It seemed that one group or another was always on strike too.
Labour were in power from 1974 to 79.
To suggest that they drastically reduced unemployment is a twist of what really happened.
At the start of the 70s unemployment was around 600,00 and it rose to 1.5million under Labour before dropping back a little.
BST excuses the inflation rises partly due to OPEC prices rises but condemns the current government without giving any credit against the gas price rises brought about by the war in Ukraine.

well he was in nappies at the time

Abba eventually got into oil and lost a fortune.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/money-how-abba-actually-came-paid-oil-david-wylie

A perfect example of why I have Hound on Ignore.

He's so obsessed with his idea of what he thinks I think, he puts wrong words in my mouth even when responding to the actual words I've written.

I did NOT say that Labour drastically reduced unemployment in the 1970s. (And by the way, it never got remotely close to 1.5million, but facts, eh?)

I'm also not sure who this BST is that Hound knows, who hasn't accepted that the Ukraine war and energy prices have been a big part of our current inflation problem. I'd like to meet him and tell him he's wrong. (But I don't actually think he exists outside Hound's rather embittered imagination.)

I'm sorry but when you start referring to yourself in the third person then i just can't take anything you say seriously!!

DD.

I'm referring to this person inside Hound's head who he regularly confuses with me.

[drfchound]

I don’t remember the seventies as being particularly great.
Inflation at 20% and rarely below 10%.
Unemployment  at over 1.5million.
It seemed that one group or another was always on strike too.
Labour were in power from 1974 to 79.
To suggest that they drastically reduced unemployment is a twist of what really happened.
At the start of the 70s unemployment was around 600,00 and it rose to 1.5million under Labour before dropping back a little.
BST excuses the inflation rises partly due to OPEC prices rises but condemns the current government without giving any credit against the gas price rises brought about by the war in Ukraine.

well he was in nappies at the time

Abba eventually got into oil and lost a fortune.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/money-how-abba-actually-came-paid-oil-david-wylie

A perfect example of why I have Hound on Ignore.

He's so obsessed with his idea of what he thinks I think, he puts wrong words in my mouth even when responding to the actual words I've written.

I did NOT say that Labour drastically reduced unemployment in the 1970s. (And by the way, it never got remotely close to 1.5million, but facts, eh?)

I'm also not sure who this BST is that Hound knows, who hasn't accepted that the Ukraine war and energy prices have been a big part of our current inflation problem. I'd like to meet him and tell him he's wrong. (But I don't actually think he exists outside Hound's rather embittered imagination.)

I'm sorry but when you start referring to yourself in the third person then i just can't take anything you say seriously!!

DD.

I'm referring to this person inside Hound's head who he regularly confuses with me.

BST, you never like to be proven wrong.
You often are though and when someone points it out you revert to whataboutery to try to justify why they are wrong.
Anyway, it keeps you happy I suppose.
I hope your son has had a great birthday.