Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

You Couldn't Make It Up - Guardian Faces Going Out Of Print As Public Sector Advertising Dries Up


Recommended Posts

Funnily enough, at the time it came across as a disaster (of spin), but actually I hold the Major government as the best of a bad lot...despite a near minority and end of term rebellious party behind him. How he held it all together and delivered what he did is amazing in hindsight.

The railways thing though was essentially the 'model privatisation' model set out by the European Union that under European Law they had to follow. The Dutch for instance did the same but, of course, the French sensibly ignored it.

Major was an excellent politican, I particularly respect him for reining in the authoritarian tendencies of the Thatcher years, putting the police back in their box, and starting peace negotiations with the IRA despite them having tried to kill him. His party didn't give him much control of anything beyond these aspects, as they were too busy choking on satsumas and conducing power struggles over who would be the next leader (of the 14 year opposition!).

He should have devalued after the election in '92, as labour would have, but if he had we'd never have heard the end of it. He also rejected racist and homophobic rhetoric, all the cultural changes in British society we associate with the Blair years came from his mandate.

Edited by boynamedsue
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 172
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

See the thread has gone off topic a wee bit,

but spoke to a friend in the biz

Guardian going 5 days a week, apparently. Does that mean Saturday issue is canned? Weird, thought that would be their biggest seller, but it is a bit of a comic. Focus is online for 'breaking news', and the print edition to have more analysis and be targetted at the 'evening reader' market.

They've been trying to punt the Observer for years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

See the thread has gone off topic a wee bit,

but spoke to a friend in the biz

Guardian going 5 days a week, apparently. Does that mean Saturday issue is canned? Weird, thought that would be their biggest seller, but it is a bit of a comic. Focus is online for 'breaking news', and the print edition to have more analysis and be targetted at the 'evening reader' market.

They've been trying to punt the Observer for years.

Wow, that is big news if it happens. The Observer is a terrible paper, it should be put out of its misery.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it happened under a tory government, and Ted Heath declared it, and it was a result of his industrial policies. Top tip, buy books, then read them. It will allow you to comment in an informed manner.

true - the mid 70s Heath govt comes across as awful, bears repeat that the first (of many) that Thatcher politically put to the sword was Ted Heath

the Wilson govt in late 60s/early 70s seemed ok, then the Callaghan govt in the late 70s was poor, as far as I can tell because the Labour Party was ungovernable at this point, callaghan comes across as a decernt enough bloke

but the upshot was we had 2 poor governments in succession, a tory followed by a minority Labour govt, which is why there was a vacancy for an uncompromising leader in Thatcher to really get hold of the country

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it happened under a tory government, and Ted Heath declared it, and it was a result of his industrial policies. Top tip, buy books, then read them. It will allow you to comment in an informed manner.

Funnily enough I watched an excellent program on BBC 4 the other day which explored just this issue....

Harold Wilson followed a policy of industrial appeasement... give the union barons anything they asked for simply to avoid strikes.

When Health challenged the idea that unions should get whatever they wanted whenever they asked they launched a wave of strikes.

Health caused the 3 day week insofar as he had the temerity to challenge the power of the unions.

Incidentally.... Wilson's policy of buying off the unions simply stored up problems which emerged later in the 70's via horrific inflation.

Top tip....watch the telly, it's more accurate than the books you've been buying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Funnily enough I watched an excellent program on BBC 4 the other day which explored just this issue....

Harold Wilson followed a policy of industrial appeasement... give the union barons anything they asked for simply to avoid strikes.

When Health challenged the idea that unions should get whatever they wanted whenever they asked they launched a wave of strikes.

Health caused the 3 day week insofar as he had the temerity to challenge the power of the unions.

Incidentally.... Wilson's policy of buying off the unions simply stored up problems which emerged later in the 70's via horrific inflation.

Top tip....watch the telly, it's more accurate than the books you've been buying.

that's interesting - wasn't it Wilson's 2nd or 3rd term (not concurrently) - got sloppy...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Funnily enough I watched an excellent program on BBC 4 the other day which explored just this issue....

Harold Wilson followed a policy of industrial appeasement... give the union barons anything they asked for simply to avoid strikes.

When Health challenged the idea that unions should get whatever they wanted whenever they asked they launched a wave of strikes.

Health caused the 3 day week insofar as he had the temerity to challenge the power of the unions.

Incidentally.... Wilson's policy of buying off the unions simply stored up problems which emerged later in the 70's via horrific inflation.

Top tip....watch the telly, it's more accurate than the books you've been buying.

Did they mention that the miners went on strike when inflation had eaten away at their wages at a time when coal was earning a record price due to the oil crisis? The energy crisis resulting from this was the cause of the 3 day week.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did they mention that the miners went on strike when inflation had eaten away at their wages at a time when coal was earning a record price due to the oil crisis? The energy crisis resulting from this was the cause of the 3 day week.

Yawn. What caused the Winter of discontent? Your beloved Labour, frantically trying to cap wage rises in the face of inflation.

Anyway, whatever the price of coal, they were running at a loss. There was coal being delivered to the docks for less than the price we could extract it for; that may have changed if Ian MacGregor was able to turn the industry around, but no we can't have that can we bruvvers. Strike!

By the way, there was actually a glut of oil at the time of the strike which was a full five years after the oil crisis, but don't let that change your red-tinted view of history.

Inflation ate away at EVERYONES real wages, but they also rose quickly in nominal terms which is why many people effectively got their mortgages paid for by inflation. Hey, someone mentioned houses!

Edit to add: I say again, most of the population had a ball in the 80s. Labour can't bear to admit this, so they cling to their little protected species as it suits. Callaghan stuck it to the miners in EXACTLY the same way in '78, which caused the Winter of Discontent. But don't mention that, bruvvers and sisstuz.

Edited by tahoma
Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously the solution to these tory/liebour top trumps type discussions is to split the country into 2. Constant liebour govt North of a line from the Mersey to the humber, Constant Tory govt south of it. Wipe the debt, and we'll see which half does better over the next 50 years. I know which my money would be on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously the solution to these tory/liebour top trumps type discussions is to split the country into 2. Constant liebour govt North of a line from the Mersey to the humber, Constant Tory govt south of it. Wipe the debt, and we'll see which half does better over the next 50 years. I know which my money would be on.

It's not about which does better it's about which one is "fairer".

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not about which does better it's about which one is "fairer".

'Fair'. In a world obsessed with fairness, everyone hates each other.

You fear the man who has a dollar less than you, that dollar is rightfully his, he makes you feel like a moral defrauder. You hate the man who has a dollar more than you, that dollar is rightfully yours, he makes you feel that you are morally defrauded. The man below is a source of your guilt, the man above is a source of your frustration.

You do not know what to surrender or demand, when to give and when to grab, what pleasure in life is rightfully yours and what debt is still unpaid to others - you struggle to evade, as ‘theory,’ the knowledge that by the moral standard you’ve accepted you are guilty every moment of your life, there is no mouthful of food you swallow that is not needed by someone somewhere on Earth - and you give up the problem in blind resentment, you conclude that moral perfection is not to be achieved or desired, that you will muddle through by snatching as snatch can and by avoiding the eyes of the young, of those who look at you as if self-esteem were possible and they expected you to have it. Guilt is all that you retain within your soul - and so does every other man, as he goes past, avoiding your eyes. Do you wonder why your morality has not achieved brotherhood on earth or the good will of man to man?

Guess who said that... :D

In that quote is the explanation for that pinched, twisted look that seems to haunt the face of lefties.

Edited by tahoma
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it happened under a tory government, and Ted Heath declared it, and it was a result of his industrial policies. Top tip, buy books, then read them. It will allow you to comment in an informed manner.

.....lived through it....don't need books ....you should stick to non fiction and throw away the Mirror and Guardian ...are you with the BBC...?.... :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously the solution to these tory/liebour top trumps type discussions is to split the country into 2. Constant liebour govt North of a line from the Mersey to the humber, Constant Tory govt south of it. Wipe the debt, and we'll see which half does better over the next 50 years. I know which my money would be on.

Without the ability of the CB sucking the life out of the provinces to fund london the south would drop off a cliff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not about which does better it's about which one is "fairer".

And which works. The left is fairer on paper but ends up being dominated by out-of-touch control freaks who screw everything up because realities always come second to political ideology (and is far too full of people who refuse to practice what they preach). The right is beloved of those who get upset at anyone trying to stop them doing whatever the hell they feel like with no regard to the consequences on others, and anyone who's already at the top and doesn't want their ill-gotten gains threatened. They also refuse to practice what they preach (leave them free to make money but rescue them from losing). Both often seem to want to screw everyone else, simply by different means.

The comments from the most obvious supporters of one side or the other often suggests that the left attracts the naive, the right attracts the obnoxious.

The problem is that far too often everything gets too polarised, when a good balance of both is needed, and what works in one situation doesn't necessarily in another.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit to add: I say again, most of the population had a ball in the 80s. Labour can't bear to admit this, so they cling to their little protected species as it suits.

Most people had a ball in the noughties aswell, are you implying that Brown actually was a superb chancellor

Edited by georgia o'keeffe
Link to post
Share on other sites

And which works. The left is fairer on paper but ends up being dominated by out-of-touch control freaks who screw everything up because realities always come second to political ideology (and is far too full of people who refuse to practice what they preach). The right is beloved of those who get upset at anyone trying to stop them doing whatever the hell they feel like with no regard to the consequences on others, and anyone who's already at the top and doesn't want their ill-gotten gains threatened. They also refuse to practice what they preach (leave them free to make money but rescue them from losing). Both often seem to want to screw everyone else, simply by different means.

The comments from the most obvious supporters of one side or the other often suggests that the left attracts the naive, the right attracts the obnoxious.

The problem is that far too often everything gets too polarised, when a good balance of both is needed, and what works in one situation doesn't necessarily in another.

Trouble with the left is they cant tell the difference between 'equality' and 'equality of oppurtunity'

They assume that because inequality exists, it must be because someone else is holding some other person back. Whereas the fact is some people are lazy, some proactive, some intelligent, some stupid. Aspiration simply encourages people to be less lazy and more educated.

In a free society, inequality will always exist, even if we are all given equal chances in life. Given the communist alternative results in genocide, mass famine, political repression, religious persecution, speech and thought crimes and so on, i think inequality is a fair price to pay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So do I.

They'll mostly move where the jobs end up after the predation ends.

I honestly dont see what difference the absence of a central bank will make other than a few dozen less billionaires racing around in Ferraris. People will still need financial services, loans, savings and so forth. Most of the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of FIRE related jobs are low paid call centre workers and customer service types who will still need to be employed in Building socs, credit unions, co-ops and whatever else is left if interbank or shadow banking type stuff failed. The market share will shift from banks to traditional savings and loan type outfits. Such things existed before the Fed and BoE, dont see why they wouldnt after either.

All that i see happening is less funny money bloating london property prices. Wont be as much money in it, but given that money all goes to a small elite anyway, i hardly less that crashing Londons economy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trouble with the left is they cant tell the difference between 'equality' and 'equality of oppurtunity'

They assume that because inequality exists, it must be because someone else is holding some other person back. Whereas the fact is some people are lazy, some proactive, some intelligent, some stupid. Aspiration simply encourages people to be less lazy and more educated.

In a free society, inequality will always exist, even if we are all given equal chances in life. Given the communist alternative results in genocide, mass famine, political repression, religious persecution, speech and thought crimes and so on, i think inequality is a fair price to pay.

I completely agree that that's a major problem with how a lot of left-wing thinkers think. That's the naivety that annoyed me. I don't think that it's a fundamental part of the whole concept of the left although it seems to be an inevitable one. But "given the communist alternative..." is looking at it from a very polarised view. One extreme or the other inevitably results in a vile world.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most people had a ball in the noughties aswell, are you implying that Brown actually was a superb chancellor

I think the fact that the noughties were a massive credit binge rather than actual wealth generation has been rather well done on here. House prices were at a historic low when Labour gained power.

Many did indeed have a ball. Time for the hangover, but no no no, someone must keep the music playing in the public sector ballroom. They're worth it.

I'm sure some think my comments 'obnoxious'. I wish reality wasn't so cruel, I wish pastries would fall from the clouds at the expense of my opening my mouth, and wine would flow from rocks. Then I could say nice things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the fact that the noughties were a massive credit binge rather than actual wealth generation has been rather well done on here. House prices were at a historic low when Labour gained power.

Many did indeed have a ball. Time for the hangover, but no no no, someone must keep the music playing in the public sector ballroom. They're worth it.

I'm sure some think my comments 'obnoxious'. I wish reality wasn't so cruel, I wish pastries would fall from the clouds at the expense of my opening my mouth, and wine would flow from rocks. Then I could say nice things.

...you are Gordo the Clown Brown.... :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.