Reasons to be Cheerful

[scawsby steve]

Right guys, I've been giving this some thought and have realised how deeply paradoxical this whole thing is. For most of the 1960s we were under the rule of Harold Wilson's Labour Government, and you lot say those times were sh*te. For the last 9 years we've been under the rule of the Tories, and you say times are better now than they've ever been; richer, more peaceful, more tolerant. Can you see where this is going?

So come on guys, what's it to be? Are you having your cake or eating it?

[Axholme Lion]

No-one had owt worth nicking eh?
Kind of refutes your claim that things were better back then BB.

Why do you socialists think everything has to be about how much money we have? We might have been poorer financially back then but people, in general, seemed happier despite having nowt worth nicking. Most of us have a better standard of living nowadays, but a lot less value of it.

Having loads of money doesn't mean that you will have a good quality of life. I'd rather live in the countryside ( if there's any left that we haven't built on ) and have less money than be loaded in the city.

[drfchound]

If it didn’t make the headlines then we probably wouldn’t know about it,  would we?

Somebody must know about them otherwise they wouldn't be so stupid as to go round saying that these murders don't make the headlines, would they?

I don’t know, do you.

[i_ateallthepies]

I use both Remainer and Remoaner terms in order to differentiate between the likes of me and you. I was a Remainer and you are a Remoaner. I find it of great importance that we are not put in the same category.

I also think being called a Remoaner is far less insulting than being called a tight racist thick old berk who pulled up the ladder to protect his wealth!

Wrong again as usual BB, you're comparing apples with lemons.  Remoaner is just an insult, the other is a fact.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Right guys, I've been giving this some thought and have realised how deeply paradoxical this whole thing is. For most of the 1960s we were under the rule of Harold Wilson's Labour Government, and you lot say those times were sh*te. For the last 9 years we've been under the rule of the Tories, and you say times are better now than they've ever been; richer, more peaceful, more tolerant. Can you see where this is going?

So come on guys, what's it to be? Are you having your cake or eating it?

It's not hard SS.

There is a general trend towards improvement.

In health standards. In educational standards. In housing standards. In environmental standards. In the quality of cars and communications. In efficient wealth production through productivity improvements.

Much of that is driven by technical improvement. The internet would have been developed whether Thatcher or Kinnock was PM in the 1980s.

The political question is whether the proceeds of those improvements have been managed sensibly and fairly.

It is an unarguable fact that today, after 40 years of a more or less market-dominated political environment, far, FAR more proceeds of that improvement go to the richest and far fewer to the rest than was the case in the 1960s. We were poorer then but we distributed the proceeds more equitably.

The change over the past 40-50 years didn't inevitably have to happen. It was a political choice.

My argument is not that we should chuck away all the improvements of the last half century. I just want them more evenly spread.

Combine the best of both. The overall wealth of today with the equitable spirit we had in the 1960s.

Do you disagree with that?

[scawsby steve]

Right guys, I've been giving this some thought and have realised how deeply paradoxical this whole thing is. For most of the 1960s we were under the rule of Harold Wilson's Labour Government, and you lot say those times were sh*te. For the last 9 years we've been under the rule of the Tories, and you say times are better now than they've ever been; richer, more peaceful, more tolerant. Can you see where this is going?

So come on guys, what's it to be? Are you having your cake or eating it?

It's not hard SS.

There is a general trend towards improvement.

In health standards. In educational standards. In housing standards. In environmental standards. In the quality of cars and communications. In efficient wealth production through productivity improvements.

Much of that is driven by technical improvement. The internet would have been developed whether Thatcher or Kinnock was PM in the 1980s.

The political question is whether the proceeds of those improvements have been managed sensibly and fairly.

It is an unarguable fact that today, after 40 years of a more or less market-dominated political environment, far, FAR more proceeds of that improvement go to the richest and far fewer to the rest than was the case in the 1960s. We were poorer then but we distributed the proceeds more equitably.

The change over the past 40-50 years didn't inevitably have to happen. It was a political choice.

My argument is not that we should chuck away all the improvements of the last half century. I just want them more evenly spread.

Combine the best of both. The overall wealth of today with the equitable spirit we had in the 1960s.

Do you disagree with that?

No I don't, so why do so many of you knock the 60s? We won the World Cup, had zero unemployment, and working class pleasures were cheap. What was there not to like?

[Bentley Bullet]

I use both Remainer and Remoaner terms in order to differentiate between the likes of me and you. I was a Remainer and you are a Remoaner. I find it of great importance that we are not put in the same category.

I also think being called a Remoaner is far less insulting than being called a tight racist thick old berk who pulled up the ladder to protect his wealth!

Wrong again as usual BB, you're comparing apples with lemons.  Remoaner is just an insult, the other is a fact.

Well, you must surely be the bitter Lemon then, You're much too sour for the Apple pies.

[Herbert Anchovy]

Right guys, I've been giving this some thought and have realised how deeply paradoxical this whole thing is. For most of the 1960s we were under the rule of Harold Wilson's Labour Government, and you lot say those times were sh*te. For the last 9 years we've been under the rule of the Tories, and you say times are better now than they've ever been; richer, more peaceful, more tolerant. Can you see where this is going?

So come on guys, what's it to be? Are you having your cake or eating it?

It's not hard SS.

There is a general trend towards improvement.

In health standards. In educational standards. In housing standards. In environmental standards. In the quality of cars and communications. In efficient wealth production through productivity improvements.

Much of that is driven by technical improvement. The internet would have been developed whether Thatcher or Kinnock was PM in the 1980s.

The political question is whether the proceeds of those improvements have been managed sensibly and fairly.

It is an unarguable fact that today, after 40 years of a more or less market-dominated political environment, far, FAR more proceeds of that improvement go to the richest and far fewer to the rest than was the case in the 1960s. We were poorer then but we distributed the proceeds more equitably.

The change over the past 40-50 years didn't inevitably have to happen. It was a political choice.

My argument is not that we should chuck away all the improvements of the last half century. I just want them more evenly spread.

Combine the best of both. The overall wealth of today with the equitable spirit we had in the 1960s.

Do you disagree with that?

No I don't, so why do so many of you knock the 60s? We won the World Cup, had zero unemployment, and working class pleasures were cheap. What was there not to like?

I’ve not seen anybody knock the 60’s SS. As I’ve said twice before, the OP referred to the 80’s and 90’s. You brought up the 60’s. The point that’s being made is that many aspects of life in the UK have improved over the past 30-40 years. The statistical comparison showed that murder rates in 1967 and 2015 weren’t too different.

[Bentley Bullet]

http://www.murderuk.com/misc_crime_stats.html

[scawsby steve]

Right guys, I've been giving this some thought and have realised how deeply paradoxical this whole thing is. For most of the 1960s we were under the rule of Harold Wilson's Labour Government, and you lot say those times were sh*te. For the last 9 years we've been under the rule of the Tories, and you say times are better now than they've ever been; richer, more peaceful, more tolerant. Can you see where this is going?

So come on guys, what's it to be? Are you having your cake or eating it?

It's not hard SS.

There is a general trend towards improvement.

In health standards. In educational standards. In housing standards. In environmental standards. In the quality of cars and communications. In efficient wealth production through productivity improvements.

Much of that is driven by technical improvement. The internet would have been developed whether Thatcher or Kinnock was PM in the 1980s.

The political question is whether the proceeds of those improvements have been managed sensibly and fairly.

It is an unarguable fact that today, after 40 years of a more or less market-dominated political environment, far, FAR more proceeds of that improvement go to the richest and far fewer to the rest than was the case in the 1960s. We were poorer then but we distributed the proceeds more equitably.

The change over the past 40-50 years didn't inevitably have to happen. It was a political choice.

My argument is not that we should chuck away all the improvements of the last half century. I just want them more evenly spread.

Combine the best of both. The overall wealth of today with the equitable spirit we had in the 1960s.

Do you disagree with that?

No I don't, so why do so many of you knock the 60s? We won the World Cup, had zero unemployment, and working class pleasures were cheap. What was there not to like?

I’ve not seen anybody knock the 60’s SS. As I’ve said twice before, the OP referred to the 80’s and 90’s. You brought up the 60’s. The point that’s being made is that many aspects of life in the UK have improved over the past 30-40 years. The statistical comparison showed that murder rates in 1967 and 2015 weren’t too different.

I wasn't just referring to this thread Herbert. There have been one or two other threads on the same subject, with references to tin baths and outside toilets.

[SydneyRover]

I use both Remainer and Remoaner terms in order to differentiate between the likes of me and you. I was a Remainer and you are a Remoaner. I find it of great importance that we are not put in the same category.

I also think being called a Remoaner is far less insulting than being called a tight racist thick old berk who pulled up the ladder to protect his wealth!

I suppose it's up to you to prove that you're not according to your own rules 

[Bentley Bullet]

I couldn't prove it even if I wanted to. This is what we hit on earlier. Somethings can't be proved by links because they don't always exist. So, I reckon you'll have to continue shitting in my shoe and I'll carry on pissing in your Bovril.

Not long to go now anyway!

[drfchound]

I couldn't prove it even if I wanted to. This is what we hit on earlier. Somethings can't be proved by links because they don't always exist. So, I reckon you'll have to continue shitting in my shoe and I'll carry on pissing in your Bovril.

Not long to go now anyway!

That Billy Connolly story was a good one BB.

[Bentley Bullet]

Ahaaaaa! I pinched that one Hound!

[BillyStubbsTears]

Oh it's tiring BB but what the hell.

This thread started off on the topic of how, as folk get older, they tend to prefer their prejudices and often imperfect recollection (because we ALL have imperfect recollection) to facts. And they won't change these opinions even when presented with facts. Especially on the subject of how much better it was in the Good Old Days.

You gave us a, frankly, incredible opinion. That "Nowadays a murder in Doncaster might not even hit the front page of the Doncaster Free Press." I say it's incredible, because local newspapers are fighting for their very existence, and need every bit of "grab 'em" news they can find.

In that context, I don't think it's unreasonable for you to be asked to provide some evidence of that claim. But you don't. Instead you get arsey when asked to deal with facts. Which kind of nicely reinforces the content of the OP.

[Bentley Bullet]

Because I haven't got any evidence, BST. But the fact is I know that it is true because I've seen evidence of it.

[SydneyRover]

Proving a negative? 

[Bentley Bullet]

Don't be too hard-on Sydney's comment that has been removed along with ours Hound. He might be an embarrassment to us but he's probably huge down under.

[i_ateallthepies]

Right guys, I've been giving this some thought and have realised how deeply paradoxical this whole thing is. For most of the 1960s we were under the rule of Harold Wilson's Labour Government, and you lot say those times were sh*te. For the last 9 years we've been under the rule of the Tories, and you say times are better now than they've ever been; richer, more peaceful, more tolerant. Can you see where this is going?

So come on guys, what's it to be? Are you having your cake or eating it?

It's not hard SS.

There is a general trend towards improvement.

In health standards. In educational standards. In housing standards. In environmental standards. In the quality of cars and communications. In efficient wealth production through productivity improvements.

Much of that is driven by technical improvement. The internet would have been developed whether Thatcher or Kinnock was PM in the 1980s.

The political question is whether the proceeds of those improvements have been managed sensibly and fairly.

It is an unarguable fact that today, after 40 years of a more or less market-dominated political environment, far, FAR more proceeds of that improvement go to the richest and far fewer to the rest than was the case in the 1960s. We were poorer then but we distributed the proceeds more equitably.

The change over the past 40-50 years didn't inevitably have to happen. It was a political choice.

My argument is not that we should chuck away all the improvements of the last half century. I just want them more evenly spread.

Combine the best of both. The overall wealth of today with the equitable spirit we had in the 1960s.

Do you disagree with that?

No I don't, so why do so many of you knock the 60s? We won the World Cup, had zero unemployment, and working class pleasures were cheap. What was there not to like?

I’ve not seen anybody knock the 60’s SS. As I’ve said twice before, the OP referred to the 80’s and 90’s. You brought up the 60’s. The point that’s being made is that many aspects of life in the UK have improved over the past 30-40 years. The statistical comparison showed that murder rates in 1967 and 2015 weren’t too different.

I wasn't just referring to this thread Herbert. There have been one or two other threads on the same subject, with references to tin baths and outside toilets.

I remember that discussion SS and think it was me who brought up the example of outside toilets among others.  But it was a discussion nothing more as far as I was concerned, certainly not knocking the 60s.  So, there you go twisting the facts once again.  You'd make a fully fledged Tory if you could up your game.

[scawsby steve]

Right guys, I've been giving this some thought and have realised how deeply paradoxical this whole thing is. For most of the 1960s we were under the rule of Harold Wilson's Labour Government, and you lot say those times were sh*te. For the last 9 years we've been under the rule of the Tories, and you say times are better now than they've ever been; richer, more peaceful, more tolerant. Can you see where this is going?

So come on guys, what's it to be? Are you having your cake or eating it?

It's not hard SS.

There is a general trend towards improvement.

In health standards. In educational standards. In housing standards. In environmental standards. In the quality of cars and communications. In efficient wealth production through productivity improvements.

Much of that is driven by technical improvement. The internet would have been developed whether Thatcher or Kinnock was PM in the 1980s.

The political question is whether the proceeds of those improvements have been managed sensibly and fairly.

It is an unarguable fact that today, after 40 years of a more or less market-dominated political environment, far, FAR more proceeds of that improvement go to the richest and far fewer to the rest than was the case in the 1960s. We were poorer then but we distributed the proceeds more equitably.

The change over the past 40-50 years didn't inevitably have to happen. It was a political choice.

My argument is not that we should chuck away all the improvements of the last half century. I just want them more evenly spread.

Combine the best of both. The overall wealth of today with the equitable spirit we had in the 1960s.

Do you disagree with that?

No I don't, so why do so many of you knock the 60s? We won the World Cup, had zero unemployment, and working class pleasures were cheap. What was there not to like?

I’ve not seen anybody knock the 60’s SS. As I’ve said twice before, the OP referred to the 80’s and 90’s. You brought up the 60’s. The point that’s being made is that many aspects of life in the UK have improved over the past 30-40 years. The statistical comparison showed that murder rates in 1967 and 2015 weren’t too different.

I wasn't just referring to this thread Herbert. There have been one or two other threads on the same subject, with references to tin baths and outside toilets.

I remember that discussion SS and think it was me who brought up the example of outside toilets among others.  But it was a discussion nothing more as far as I was concerned, certainly not knocking the 60s.  So, there you go twisting the facts once again.  You'd make a fully fledged Tory if you could up your game.

Wrong again mate. I'm not twisting the facts at all. Some other posters criticised the 60s, citing things like racism and intolerance.

However, I'm not going to accuse you of twisting the facts. I mean, socialists never do that do they?

[BillyStubbsTears]

SS.

There WERE tin baths and outside toilets in Denaby in 1975. Fact. Whether you like it or not.

[Bentley Bullet]

What did you expect under a Labour government?

[scawsby steve]

SS.

There WERE tin baths and outside toilets in Denaby in 1975. Fact. Whether you like it or not.

BST, you're inadvertently making my point for me. Mr Pies accused me of twisting the facts by claiming some people on here knocked the 60s.

You've just confirmed that I was telling the truth. Thanks for that.

[i_ateallthepies]

Twist & Shout SS, you're doing it again.  You're just plain wrong trying to make out that giving examples of conditions that existed in the 60s is knocking it.  You're being f**king ridiculous.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Pies.

Precisely.

I'm staying a fact. That is value free. There WERE tin baths and outside toilets in Denaby in 1975. People might very well interpret that as meaning that life wasn't all that good in the 1960s, but simply stating that fact is not in itself knocking anything.

[scawsby steve]

Twist & Shout SS, you're doing it again.  You're just plain wrong trying to make out that giving examples of conditions that existed in the 60s is knocking it.  You're being f**king ridiculous.

Examples of conditions? Don't you mean examples of bad conditions, as BST was alluding to? Either you're twisting words, or you don't understand semantics. I think the latter is the most likely, if you can't see that some people on here have knocked the 60s.

I'd give this up if I were you, because you're starting to embarrass yourself.

[scawsby steve]

Pies.

Precisely.

I'm staying a fact. That is value free. There WERE tin baths and outside toilets in Denaby in 1975. People might very well interpret that as meaning that life wasn't all that good in the 1960s, but simply stating that fact is not in itself knocking anything.

OK BST, I thought you were leaning towards my point of view on this, but obviously not; so I'll have to refer to the fact that you've also mentioned things like racism and intolerance that existed in the 60s.

If that's not knocking the 60s I don't know what is.

[BillyStubbsTears]

It's just another fact to put into the discussion SS.

Crude racism was endemic in popular culture in the 1960s and early 70s, and tolerated compared to today.

Just a fact.

[scawsby steve]

It's just another fact to put into the discussion SS.

Crude racism was endemic in popular culture in the 1960s and early 70s, and tolerated compared to today.

Just a fact.

BST, I've no idea why you're doing this. Your understanding of semantics is enough to know what "knocking" means; it means criticising something in a negative way. You and others on here did that by claiming that things are better nowadays, and citing negative things about the 60s to endorse that opinion.

What part of all that are you not getting?

[i_ateallthepies]

Twist & Shout SS, you're doing it again.  You're just plain wrong trying to make out that giving examples of conditions that existed in the 60s is knocking it.  You're being f**king ridiculous.

Examples of conditions? Don't you mean examples of bad conditions, as BST was alluding to? Either you're twisting words, or you don't understand semantics. I think the latter is the most likely, if you can't see that some people on here have knocked the 60s.

I'd give this up if I were you, because you're starting to embarrass yourself.

I don't embarrass easily Steve.  I'll bring you back to the discussion we were having when the outside toilets and tin baths were mentioned.  It was about how living conditions today are incomparably different to back in the sixties for the common man.  You was trying to say that what we have now you had back then.  I think I know who should be embarrassed in this conversation.