Is anyone else praying for a nuclear war just to end this thread?
The-Snowman:
Is anyone else praying for a nuclear war just to end this thread?
I only klicked on it as I saw your name as the last poster so knew it’d more likely be a ■■■■ take and so worth reading! 
the maoster:
The-Snowman:
Is anyone else praying for a nuclear war just to end this thread?I only klicked on it as I saw your name as the last poster so knew it’d more likely be a ■■■■ take and so worth reading!
Perish the thought mate, perish the thought. 
Carryfast:
But no he obviously decided to charge us the same price for the stuff as the bleedin Germans combined with doing austerity in the form of wage slashing and public spending cuts as well as any bleedin Tory could.Which effectively meant less cost for the Germans because they were paying for it out of a higher wage base.
But then don’t you think the relevant issue is the “wage base” and productivity itself? Since Britain would lose it’s export market anyway if it’s industry became backward.
Probably because like you he thought the Germans would do what they couldn’t do in WW2 in taking control of our natural resources within our territorial waters by force.The result as I said being Brit workers having to pay the price of keeping German ones better off not to mention the increased depletion rate of our oil reserves and increased inflationary pressures caused by the influx of foreign cash which then went straight back out to pay for the resulting trade deficit.
You still haven’t addressed the points I’ve made about the implications of resource hoarding on foreign policy, and how these implications would themselves be costly and inflationary (as well as, obviously, involving the prospect of war).
Germany did take control of us in WW2 - our entire economy and society was turned upside down by them for the duration of the war and for years afterwards, and so were our foreign interests. Moreover, we only survived because we had allies against the Nazis’ political project - we clearly would not have allies if we had a policy of hoarding everything for ourselves unconditionally, on the contrary we would create a coalition of opponents.
The influx of foreign oil cash was a good thing, or certainly not a bad thing, for our position. For obvious reasons, we had oil fields, and to suddenly enjoy windfall profits from a massive price increase was good for our oil industry, and the expense of all those nations without huge oil reserves.
As I say, by 1980 we were surviving on our own oil (most of that occurred under Callaghan, but the real reason was probably not political policy but simply the continued momentum of exploiting the North Sea reserves, and that the oil companies responded to prices by increasing investment in oil production).
As for that not resulting in the slaughter of our manufacturing base you’re avin a larf.So tell us how do you explain the difference between a Cologne Ford v an Essex Ford or the the transfer of Vauxhall production to Opel for just two examples among numerous others which couldn’t compete with the German onslaught in the day.While as you’re so keen on supporting Callaghan’s circus of muppets remind us what happened in the case of Jenkins and especially Prentice for just two of your obvious treacherous bunch of bleedin heros.Maybe you can also remind us exactly which part of the UK manufacturing industry you were working in at shop floor level in the day.As I said vote Corbyn get Callaghan.
The reason Britain “couldn’t compete against German onslaught” is because it’s industrial policy and management practices were totally out of order. I’m not faulting the working class for attempting to defend themselves in the context. I’ve done nothing here but blame the bosses for poor management and excuse the unions and the Labour government from having played any part in creating the inflation. My defence of the Callaghan government itself is faint at best, characterising them quite rightly as right-wingers who basically launched an attack against the working class because they weren’t willing to show down with British bosses and overhaul ownership, although even many nationalised companies were not faring great and suffered from just as much industrial ructions, and increasingly imposed more and more demands on the taxpayer (at the same time as many workers expressed fury at the levels of tax they were being, quite reasonably at the time, expected to pay).
But even if workers themselves had taken control of management and had done their utmost best in that capacity, they still would have had to accept below-inflation pay rises in 1973. And if they’d wanted to improve productivity, it would have meant lower wages in the short-term (albeit regained in the long-term), so that more money was re-invested up front in production, and it would have meant sweeping away spanish practices that had grown up to protect workers from bosses but which are a dead-weight (the fundamental answer to poor or oppositional bosses is to expropriate them totally, not to get locked into defending a dizzying and sclerotic matrix of practices that are inefficient for production, like job demarcation if it is taken too far).
And the problem with expropriation is that most workers, most union members, weren’t socialists fighting for control of the means of production. It’s totally false to believe that in the 1970s, the average worker (or even the union bosses) had a vision for sweeping away private ownership and reorganising their own industry and working practices. With no way forward on the left, or at least no way forward that the majority of workers supported, it’s little wonder that those like Callaghan basically turned to the right, and said we’ve got to give the capitalist bosses at least some room to breathe, if we aren’t to overhaul their management and kill them entirely.
Of course today the boot is on the other foot, and it is the worker struggling to breathe, which is why Corbyn’s policies are guaranteed to be successful, because even if it is a total rerun of the post-war period, the fact is post-war policies worked for 30 years, benefitted workers greatly for 30 years as the state invested in industry and new technology, capitalist inefficiencies and unearned incomes were wrung out, and workers gained a greater and fairer share of the pie they created. And similarly, the question of how to move forward once the bosses backs are up against the wall will not pose itself for another 30 years.
The-Snowman:
Is anyone else praying for a nuclear war just to end this thread?
I think you’re in for witnessing a long war of attrition, I’m afraid.
the maoster:
The-Snowman:
Is anyone else praying for a nuclear war just to end this thread?I only klicked on it as I saw your name as the last poster so knew it’d more likely be a ■■■■ take and so worth reading!
I thought that was what this whole salisbury thing was really aimed at?
"The EU wants an excuse to invade East Ukraine, and needs Britain’s army to take part. But the EU cannot control Britain’s armed forces via NATO until Britain drops Brexit.
So… A concocted story to both weaken Britain’s desire to leave the cosy protection of NATO, move Britain closer to the “Remain” side of the arugment (“Remain, because a known gentle shafting is better than an unknown prosperity that could all go wrong, and put some rich people out of their gravy train jobs - boohoo!”)
Russia isn’t expected to retaliate to an EU invasion of Syria, Ukraine, and other places supposedly with Russian presence there already.
If Putin made peace with Erdogan’s Turkey as Russia’s response to Turkey shooting down of one of their aircraft - then Putin looks weak weak weak in the eyes of the EU and NATO.
A policy of “Grab what you can, whilst you can” is being pursued. “Aggressive EU expansion” by any other name.
If anything, we could do with the re-instatement of the cold war - simply to check the EU’s aggressive pursuance of WWIII.
I’m sure that once some special forces get duly wasted in coutries they shouldn’t even be in - the desire to escalate this potential armageddon further - will be halted by common sense and self-preservation instincts on all sides.
If you think about it, If the West can invade a sovererign state based on lies, kill Russians allied to that state there, and then moan when those same Russians apparently try to kill their own citizens in your Western state - then who’s really at fault, even if one takes every bit of “Intel” as good?
We’re being briefed this week to “Expect a Russian hacking attack”…
Really? Like WHAT exactly?
Hack the utilities? The NHS?
Nope. That’s just price conditioning, to cover any future balls-ups by our meccano computer systems, that should have been fully replaced decades ago. The TSB are having a spot of bother with their elastic bands and valves they have in their old COBOL-coded machines, after all…
For a “Russian Hack” to be effective - it would have to be a truly huge one. I’m talking the 9/11 of computer hacks here.
Banks are on alert, we’ve been told - in case money is stolen.
Well sorry bud - but I’ve got news for everyone. You don’t have to steal anyone’s money to deprive them of it!
You could just erase people’s bank accounts… People with no money (i.e. overdrawn balances) would be gaining, thus the Un-champaign socialists would be “Not bothered” with that (hearts and minds argument there…) whilst only truly rich people WOULD be spitting blood. But deprived of their big bucks - they can’t bribe people to follow them any more…
Perhaps it is the Celebrity/Sports/Banker classes that are about to get their collective arses kicked then - and the rest of us “Have nots”…? Do we really care? Are we going to really go to war with Russia over some millionaires being sent to the poor house■■?
(Got my Leftie hat on today - haven’t I?) 