Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "The Guardian"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
During the Economic Miracle the world was not "highly competitive" there was some competition along with a lot of protectionism - among equally strong economies. The workforce was not forced to compete with poor workers in dictatorships (that is something OUR politicians made possible, safe and lucrative with "free" "trade" deals - on behest oftheir buddies from Big Biz).
Within the societies there was more solidarity.
Especially until the 1950s there was a LOT of protectionsim going on, fixed exchange rates AND the Marshall Plan, the U.K. got the most of it btw. No fierce competition - on the contrary. And it was the same with Japan (not sure if they got Marshall Plan funds).
THAT jumstarted the ECONOMIC MIRACLE. The countries on the continent did better than the U.K. - even Germany recovered quicker after the war and the good times lasted longer than in the U.K.
Part of it is class and hostility between corporations and unions (coming from bitter fights for worker's rights, after all the Labour movement originated in the U.K.).
And also the impact of losing the colonies, other countries were used to make do without the unearned benefits of exploiting other nations - so they were set up to do better in the post colonial world.
If in a society where so many parents fail in basic childcare (whatever the reasons may be) - something goes terribly wrong in THAT SOCIETY. They do not have that in France, Belgium, Netherlands, Austria, Germany, ....
There is individual responsibility. But that does not help the child who misses out. And not every person can counteact the TREND.
You can wish or demand all you want that all parents should have the means and capability to care for their children. There are SYSTEMIC EFFECTS and SYSTEMIC FAILURES .
Food banks for nurses (which is a qualified profession) SYSTEMIC FAILURE.
Zero Hours contracts, unemployment rates beautified (a few hours paid work count as "employed). SYSTEMIC FAILURE. The strong economies don't have that.
13 % of the area of London belongs to Qatari investors. Rent prices exploding everywhere where the jobs are. SYSTEMIC FAILURE - politicians allowed that to develop - they could have prevented that as well. See recent legislation in New Zealand. Or regulation in Austria in touristic areas. Outsiders are welcome to buy up property in the remote and cheap areas, even in the cities as long as it does not get out of hand. But NOT in the very attractive regions.
They mayors can prevent people that do not LIVE in the region to BUY real estate (Austrians, EU citizens, other countries - it does not matter). Therefore the locals can afford to stay in the area.
High rents and job insecurity of course have effects on food purchases - and the modest joy of getting some treats. Moreover ongoing financial worries wear people down. Being a parent is demanding, constant stress, maybe the parent was not very strong and grounded to begin with.
1 of 65 million citizens on the streets to protest against an upcoming war. Many Tories and Blairite MPs vote for the war regardless - EPIC FAILURE of the political class. The people on the streets KNEW better - w/o the experts to advise them. Citizens for whom politics is a side show in their life, they are not PAID to be informed about the issues. But they still smelled the coffee.
Blair KNEW of course that there very likely were no WMDs, that the U.S. was hellbent to not have UN inspectors do another tour in Iraq to make sure.
Schroeder and Sarkozy KNEW as well - that is why they kept their countries out of the mess. Especially France saying NO triggerd furious reactions from the White House - they instructed THEIR media to launch a propaganda attack on France - which they did.
For the money the U.K. wasted (never mind ethical considerations, the hundreds of thousands of killed Iraqis, and lost British lifes) they could easily and generously support families with children.
Maybe some of these parents are negligent. or caught up in a dysfunctional family dynamics. That tends to go over generations, and is not likely to improve with MORE STRES (economic stress).
Or they are overworked and worn down - also by financial worries. They do not let their children go hungry, but what else do the children not get in that time ?
Anyway: those parents are not as negligent, clueless or criminal as the political class.
I exclude the Corbynistas and the Green party - THEY would have let Cheney/Bush start that mess on their own.
A true Labour government might have seen the writing on the wall and reigned in British banks in time - so that they did not get involved when the U.S. banks went crazy (the banks of Canada or Sweden did not get harmed by the GFC for instance).
Some individuals are stronger than their circumstances - many are not. Hard times do not always bring out the best in people. Some just falter, and the children with them and / or later LIKE them.
In the U.K. class is more important than in many other European countries, it hinders economic and societal progress.
1
-
1
-
A reasonable industrial policy would have reversed the trend of neoliberalism and would have reduced the work time (with the SAME purchasing power -
Either by giving an allowance to each citizens, kind of partial UBI, and / or by making the companies keep wages the same while reducing worktime. There are industries that can automate and others that can't do it as well. So an element of transfer of wealth and allowances would be necessary - so the car worker AND the nurse would profit from being part of a high technology culture although the work of nurses include much more human labor.
The 2 oil crises in the 1970s and the recessions were used by the elites to do away with the New Deal, they promoted selfishness, everbody is on their own, everybody is eager that no one should ever have a small advantage (now people want single payer but NOT for "illegal" immigrants. These people WORK someone PROFITS from their work. Those should be made to pay MORE (consumers for cheap veggies, construction, meat packing, farm workers).
Wages must rise, the outstourcing must be reversed (but slowly not with trade wars !) - and because of increased productivity the worktime must be reduced (we are going there anyway AI !). Between 1947 and 1970 productivity plus 112 %, average hourly wages adjusted for inflation plus 97 % - so almost double the purchasing power.
From then on a lot ! of the productivity gains should have been given to the workers (they got the lions share - and that is necessary or consumers cannot keep up with the output of goods). but not in form of higher wages (which only encourages consumerism! and a throwaway materialistic culture) - the productivtiy wins should have been given in TIME. so 39, 38, 37 .... 30 hours for the SAME wage (adjusted for inflation). When that is done in lockstep with productivity gains the profit, costs, revenue, output - it all remains the same.
(if you have a machine that allows you to double output, you can fire half of the staff and produce the same output. or keep all your staff, then you will have to sell the double volume of output. Or you half the worktime and pay them the same weekly amount of money - which equals a pay rise - then consumers (your customers) will have the same disposable income. Output in goods will remain the same (so it does not need a throwaway culture and excessive marketing to keep the system going), prices will remain the same (except for adaption for inflation).
The 40 hour week was around the U.S. before 1940 (Ford, Railway workers, ....), it became law in 1940 - in Europe in the 50s as soon as they recovered from the war. It was a good fit for the state of AUTOMATION THEN - this was almost 80 years ago. It is not written down in the gospel "Thou shalt work 40 hour weeks". Look at videos about modern production in automotive - and compare it to how they used to do it in the 1940s and 1950s. And they did not have computers, telephones were a rare thing, communication was in another era, and transportation of goods and people as well. Never mind science, chemistry, technology, machine building, international exchange of technology relevant goods.
1
-
1
-
The trick is called "democracy" - the incumbents had the advantage that they GOT the seat by the party (and usually not out of their own power and because of a grassroots campaign or notable union activism that built their name recognition and brand).
They HAD TIME to connect with the constituents, do some trainins in public appearances and give the voters the distinct feeling that they had their back. Moreover they had time to come to accept the change in labour and to find good connections with the activists.
Many MPs won their seats with vastly improved majorities - thanks to the grassroots - and it is not like THEY had done or encouraged the grassroots. For Momentum etc. it was country over party over Blairie prick. (for instance Stephen Kinnock, and he is very ready to undermine Corbyn, although he was smart enough to fly under the radar since June 2017)
BBC documentary: Labour: The Summer That Changed Everything - go to 30 :00 and watch the reactions of Blairites when they found out that the June 2017 was NOT catastrophically lost.
in "New Labour" the majority abstained in the infamous welfare vote and they also could not be bothered to call a spade a spade whent the Tories started to defund the healthcare system that already ! had to leanest budget of all wealthy European countries. (World bank health care expenditures of nations)
"wealthy" is important, costs of living influence wage levels. Wages are an important cost factor in healthcare, so you can compare the U.K. with Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Austria, France, Italy, .... - better than all of them.
You can slap 40 % ON the U.K. expenditures and land at the German level. And Germany is still in the overall range in Europe, more on the higher end of course ! Comparing with Hungary would not be legitimate - they have a much lower wage level and costs of living.
Only when Corbyn got the megaphone the NHS was talked about - so much so that now the Tories could be bothered to improve funding somewhat (too little too late of course).
So if a Labour MP had fought tooth and nail (like Corbyn for instance) and maybe also was on the right side of the Iraq war - now its the time to get the pat on the back from the voters and to announce the good deeds.
Most of these careerists thought they had their seats for sure - never mind trying to undermine the leader that was elected by the base.
Most of them did not earn their seat with doing their own grassroots campaign. And if they did - getting reelected should be a piece of cake.
I do not doubt that Blair would gladly have kicked Corbyn or Skinner from his seat and if possible out of the party. Well, Corbyn had the backing of his constituents. They KNEW he backed them as well.
And both men could have won as Independents. If the Blairites had gotten crazy. They EARNED and WORKED FOR their seat. Therefore it was safe.
1