1970 was the most interesting election until 2017. The answer is essentially in two parts. First, it was the Powell election. A bit like Corbyn-Brexit in 2017, you could read into Heath-Powell whatever you liked. Some people thought they were voting Tory to send a message that they liked Powell, and they did not expect to end up instead supporting Heath with a big majority. Same way Corbyn was supported by a big seat gain. Second, and not unrelated, it was one of the first big breaches in the class voting system. It seems now like the start of the slow drift away from class and toward race / white racial consciousness as the main identity divide.
I remember campaigning, for the Liberals, in 1970. It wasn't good for us, although we hoped to do better than we did. I don't, TBH, recall Powell as being important where we were. TBH, I don't recall the Labour campaign as being 'inspiring'. Nor were the Tories, but the idea of the EEC was, where I was, quite popular, apart from among elderly Non-Conformists (The Treaty of ROME!!). I don't recall any one big issue, TBH; one of those times when I wish I'd kept a diary!
Amazing comment. Thanks for this. It's great to hear from people who were there (as opposed to reading a lot about it).
As for the discussion about the role of the Beatles, what is definitely true is that the Marine Offences Act put Labour in the same category as the squares.
IIRC, AndyJS's BBC video has a very interesting section filmed in a 1970 nightclub.
1970 was the most interesting election until 2017. The answer is essentially in two parts. First, it was the Powell election. A bit like Corbyn-Brexit in 2017, you could read into Heath-Powell whatever you liked. Some people thought they were voting Tory to send a message that they liked Powell, and they did not expect to end up instead supporting Heath with a big majority. Same way Corbyn was supported by a big seat gain. Second, and not unrelated, it was one of the first big breaches in the class voting system. It seems now like the start of the slow drift away from class and toward race / white racial consciousness as the main identity divide.
I remember campaigning, for the Liberals, in 1970. It wasn't good for us, although we hoped to do better than we did. I don't, TBH, recall Powell as being important where we were. TBH, I don't recall the Labour campaign as being 'inspiring'. Nor were the Tories, but the idea of the EEC was, where I was, quite popular, apart from among elderly Non-Conformists (The Treaty of ROME!!). I don't recall any one big issue, TBH; one of those times when I wish I'd kept a diary!
As a schoolboy in the Bromsgrove constituency, it was the first election I can recall. The great conundrum throughout the election for me was where is this 'Dance' being held?
I’ve been sent an email by the Jewish Labour Movement saying that if I join them as an ally and register as a Labour friend I can vote in the election for leader and deputy leader.
So should I? I did not vote for them under Corbyn. Indeed I have been very critical of Labour under his leadership.
I would only consider doing so in order to vote for a decent leader (not a crap one) because (a) I am not at all enamoured of Boris - to put it at its absolute mildest; (b) the country - and our democracy - needs a viable opposition party not some half-crazed sect; and (c) I feel strongly that the anti-Semitic culture which has developed in Labour needs removing, regardless of whether one votes Labour or not.
But is it right to do so if I am not a Labour member and only an ex-Labour voter from years ago? It feels like gate-crashing a party. (Plus I don’t want my money to go to a party which then elects a nitwit like RLB.) On the other hand, this is what the rules permit.
So what does the PB ethics committee think, o wise ones?
If there aren’t any workers what’s the point of the trade union?
it's become a support mechanism for former miners
Ah. So that’s what Ian Lavery was doing.
I think calling what he did ‘supporting former miners’ would be about as accurate as calling Corbyn’s actions ‘tackling antisemitism head on.’
I was being sarcastic ......
Although - to be devil’s advocate - Lavery is a former miner, so I suppose he was supporting former miners after a fashion...
Does a day trip to Big Pit qualify as a career underground?
I am perhaps being disingenuous but would a HNC in Mining Engineering be required if one was either the canary or chipping away at the face?
I don’t know exactly what role he played. My guess is he was a technician. But, certainly by the 90s, that role was pretty crucial to coal extraction so if my guess is right I’m happy to call him a miner.
Call him what you like! I can think of several words more suitable and more offensive than miner!
Here's a nasty thought. In 1964 there was an election and Labour won a majority of 4. In 1966 there was another election and Labour won a majority of 97. In 1970 they were expected to win but they actually lost, with Con getting a majority of 31. Why did the Conservatives win in 1970? Genuine question.
Gordon Banks' tummy is the usual explanation.
ETA iirc there was also a bad balance of trade figure announced just beforehand in the days when anyone cared.
Yes, BBC TV would highlight the balance of payments figures every month like the temperature of a chronically-sick patient. Productivity was flagging and days lost through industrial unrest (the "British Disease") were mounting. Wilson and Castle tried to address the problem in a white paper, In Place of Strife which provoked widespread opposition in the wider Labour movement and may have contributed to a loss of support. Even so, the election result took everyone by surprise.
That's plausible. It can't be Vietnam, Powellism and Northern Ireland didn't get big until a few years later. I did think of proEuropeanism but again, that's a few years later. You're left with economic stuff.
This is bugging me. I can come up with a plausible explanation for every election 1945 to 2019 except for 1970. Dammit...
From Autumn 1967 to late Summer 1969 the Labour Government was very unpopular indeed with the Tory lead reaching 28% in Spring 1968. At the May 1968 Local Elections the Tories won control of Hackney, Lambeth , Islington as well as Sheffield, Manchester, Liverpool and Norwich. The concensus amomgst commentators at the beginning of 1969 was that the Tories were likely to win the following election by a majority nearer to 200 than 100. Labour did recover in the Autumn of 1969 , but did not regain any lead until April 1970. Surprisingly good Local Election results in May then generated a sudden polling boost with Gallup putting Labour 7.5% ahead. Wilson sought to take advantage - and the rest is history. Labour's polling recovery was too shallow to survive the campaign. Overall the 1966 - 70 Parliament saw the most unpopular Government until the 1992 - 1997 Parliament under Major.
to get on the leadership ballot through the affiliates route, candidates need 3 affiliates, 2 of them must be unions, represting 5% of the affiliated membership
The affiliated unions are
ASLEF . Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers BFAWU - Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union Community CWU - Communication Workers Union FBU - Fire Brigades Union GMB MU - Musicians Union NUM -National Union of Mineworkers (Nandy) TSSA - Transport Salaried Staffs’ Association Unison (Starmer and Rayner) Unite USDAW - Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers
The other affiliates are
BAME Labour Chinese for Labour Christians on the Left Disability Labour The Fabian Society Jewish Labour Movement Labour Animal Welfare Society Labour Business Labour Campaign for International Development Labour Housing Group Labour Movement for Europe Labour Party Irish Society Labour Students Labour Women's Networks LGBT Labour Scientists for Labour Socialist Educational Association SERA - Labour's Environment Campaign The Socialist Health Association Society for Labour Lawyers
To achive the 5% threshold, they need to have one of Unite, Unison, Usdaw, GMB or CWU. No other combination should take them over the 5%.
So one big union + one other union (regardless of how small) + any kind of Socialist Society is enough.
Other solution to get on the ballot is getting 33 CLPs nominations.
I’ve been sent an email by the Jewish Labour Movement saying that if I join them as an ally and register as a Labour friend I can vote in the election for leader and deputy leader.
So should I? I did not vote for them under Corbyn. Indeed I have been very critical of Labour under his leadership.
I would only consider doing so in order to vote for a decent leader (not a crap one) because (a) I am not at all enamoured of Boris - to put it at its absolute mildest; (b) the country - and our democracy - needs a viable opposition party not some half-crazed sect; and (c) I feel strongly that the anti-Semitic culture which has developed in Labour needs removing, regardless of whether one votes Labour or not.
But is it right to do so if I am not a Labour member and only an ex-Labour voter from years ago? It feels like gate-crashing a party. (Plus I don’t want my money to go to a party which then elects a nitwit like RLB.) On the other hand, this is what the rules permit.
So what does the PB ethics committee think, o wise ones?
I have rejoined the Jewish Labour Movement despite having voted Green last month.
1970 was the most interesting election until 2017. The answer is essentially in two parts. First, it was the Powell election. A bit like Corbyn-Brexit in 2017, you could read into Heath-Powell whatever you liked. Some people thought they were voting Tory to send a message that they liked Powell, and they did not expect to end up instead supporting Heath with a big majority. Same way Corbyn was supported by a big seat gain. Second, and not unrelated, it was one of the first big breaches in the class voting system. It seems now like the start of the slow drift away from class and toward race / white racial consciousness as the main identity divide.
I remember campaigning, for the Liberals, in 1970. It wasn't good for us, although we hoped to do better than we did. I don't, TBH, recall Powell as being important where we were. TBH, I don't recall the Labour campaign as being 'inspiring'. Nor were the Tories, but the idea of the EEC was, where I was, quite popular, apart from among elderly Non-Conformists (The Treaty of ROME!!). I don't recall any one big issue, TBH; one of those times when I wish I'd kept a diary!
First election I can recall. Remember George Brown the Deputy Leader losing his Belper seat!
(Brown was the person for whom "tired and emotional" was first coined.)
Compared to the last Conservative win in 1959, the 1970 Conservatives did a little worse. They lost the most in Scotland - except for Orkney and Shetland. They did indeed gain the most in the industrial towns around Birmingham and Manchester, but also in the band of counties from Norfolk to Cornwall where the old rural working-class / non-conformist vote for Labour or Liberals was in steep decline. The rural thing was a more long-term trend. The urban think was chalked up to Powell. In places like Dudley and Sandwell and Walsall, 1970 was a high point in the postwar era that was only exceeded last December. They also did well at the sharp end of race politics, in the bits of London that had recently been Essex, where the NF were on the rise, not just the usual Tory-East London places we think of nowadays but also Newham.
I’ve been sent an email by the Jewish Labour Movement saying that if I join them as an ally and register as a Labour friend I can vote in the election for leader and deputy leader.
So should I? I did not vote for them under Corbyn. Indeed I have been very critical of Labour under his leadership.
I would only consider doing so in order to vote for a decent leader (not a crap one) because (a) I am not at all enamoured of Boris - to put it at its absolute mildest; (b) the country - and our democracy - needs a viable opposition party not some half-crazed sect; and (c) I feel strongly that the anti-Semitic culture which has developed in Labour needs removing, regardless of whether one votes Labour or not.
But is it right to do so if I am not a Labour member and only an ex-Labour voter from years ago? It feels like gate-crashing a party. (Plus I don’t want my money to go to a party which then elects a nitwit like RLB.) On the other hand, this is what the rules permit.
So what does the PB ethics committee think, o wise ones?
None of my business, but vote away! Any vote for a candidate other than Long-Bailey or Burgon has to be a positive.
Don't like Boris? Did you not see him with Dan Walker? He was sublime...or do I mean ridiculous?
1970 was the most interesting election until 2017. The answer is essentially in two parts. First, it was the Powell election. A bit like Corbyn-Brexit in 2017, you could read into Heath-Powell whatever you liked. Some people thought they were voting Tory to send a message that they liked Powell, and they did not expect to end up instead supporting Heath with a big majority. Same way Corbyn was supported by a big seat gain. Second, and not unrelated, it was one of the first big breaches in the class voting system. It seems now like the start of the slow drift away from class and toward race / white racial consciousness as the main identity divide.
I remember campaigning, for the Liberals, in 1970. It wasn't good for us, although we hoped to do better than we did. I don't, TBH, recall Powell as being important where we were. TBH, I don't recall the Labour campaign as being 'inspiring'. Nor were the Tories, but the idea of the EEC was, where I was, quite popular, apart from among elderly Non-Conformists (The Treaty of ROME!!). I don't recall any one big issue, TBH; one of those times when I wish I'd kept a diary!
Amazing comment. Thanks for this. It's great to hear from people who were there (as opposed to reading a lot about it).
As for the discussion about the role of the Beatles, what is definitely true is that the Marine Offences Act put Labour in the same category as the squares.
IIRC, AndyJS's BBC video has a very interesting section filmed in a 1970 nightclub.
First of all, thank, you. And of course, memories can be jogged. I'd forgotten the Marine Offences Act, which was very unpopular among people a bit younger than I, at the time. As I say, memory jogged, and I now recall quite a bitter argument with a colleague about 'Free Radio". IIRC the Tories weren't particularly for, but which Labour were demonstrably against.
Here's a nasty thought. In 1964 there was an election and Labour won a majority of 4. In 1966 there was another election and Labour won a majority of 97. In 1970 they were expected to win but they actually lost, with Con getting a majority of 31. Why did the Conservatives win in 1970? Genuine question.
Gordon Banks' tummy is the usual explanation.
ETA iirc there was also a bad balance of trade figure announced just beforehand in the days when anyone cared.
Yes, BBC TV would highlight the balance of payments figures every month like the temperature of a chronically-sick patient. Productivity was flagging and days lost through industrial unrest (the "British Disease") were mounting. Wilson and Castle tried to address the problem in a white paper, In Place of Strife which provoked widespread opposition in the wider Labour movement and may have contributed to a loss of support. Even so, the election result took everyone by surprise.
That's plausible. It can't be Vietnam, Powellism and Northern Ireland didn't get big until a few years later. I did think of proEuropeanism but again, that's a few years later. You're left with economic stuff.
This is bugging me. I can come up with a plausible explanation for every election 1945 to 2019 except for 1970. Dammit...
From Autumn 1967 to late Summer 1969 the Labour Government was very unpopular indeed with the Tory lead reaching 28% in Spring 1968. At the May 1968 Local Elections the Tories won control of Hackney, Lambeth , Islington as well as Sheffield, Manchester, Liverpool and Norwich. The concensus amomgst commentators at the beginning of 1969 was that the Tories were likely to win the following election by a majority nearer to 200 than 100. Labour did recover in the Autumn of 1969 , but did not regain any lead until April 1970. Surprisingly good Local Election results in May then generated a sudden polling boost with Gallup putting Labour 7.5% ahead. Wilson sought to take advantage - and the rest is history. Labour's polling recovery was too shallow to survive the campaign. Overall the 1966 - 70 Parliament saw the most unpopular Government until the 1992 - 1997 Parliament under Major.
Wiki is almost completely lacking in details about the 1970 local elections apart from the GLC and Cardiff.
54% of Scots voted for Unionist parties at the general election after Brexit, we do not care what ex Labour Welsh leaders with an axe to grind against Boris think
I’ve been sent an email by the Jewish Labour Movement saying that if I join them as an ally and register as a Labour friend I can vote in the election for leader and deputy leader.
So should I? I did not vote for them under Corbyn. Indeed I have been very critical of Labour under his leadership.
I would only consider doing so in order to vote for a decent leader (not a crap one) because (a) I am not at all enamoured of Boris - to put it at its absolute mildest; (b) the country - and our democracy - needs a viable opposition party not some half-crazed sect; and (c) I feel strongly that the anti-Semitic culture which has developed in Labour needs removing, regardless of whether one votes Labour or not.
But is it right to do so if I am not a Labour member and only an ex-Labour voter from years ago? It feels like gate-crashing a party. (Plus I don’t want my money to go to a party which then elects a nitwit like RLB.) On the other hand, this is what the rules permit.
So what does the PB ethics committee think, o wise ones?
If you want to vote for the person you think will be best for the party I don't see a problem. It is only if you were joining for nefarious reasons that you would be morally on shaky ground.
The presence of a blue tick is absolutely relevant as it confirms it as original despite your misleading and false attempts to deny it
I’m sorry but you really are embarrassing yourself here.
No, that is you
You are being ridiculous.
This is a photograph of a tweet.
There is no date on it. It certainly cant be from today because They have has their Twitter account suspended since December.
Ergo its either fake or has nothing to do with today’s events.
It’s a completely separate issue to the article on their website which obviously does express displeasure with how the situation is being handled but you’re ruining your argument with this cretinous debate over a photo of a tweet from a racist bigot.
That is absolutely a tweet and runs identical with the anti Sturgeon line on todays Wings website and runs absolutely in tandem with it despite your false and misleading attempts to deny it
What part of “they’ve had their account suspended since December” do you not understand?
What part of 'Wings Over Scotland is anti Sturgeon' do you not understand, I have posted evidence after evidence from twitter and their own website, the facts do not lie despite your refusal to accept them
No-one is disputing that. I’m disputing that the racist bigot you posted as a source was using a photo of a tweet (from 5th December based on my research) to suggest that was the response to today’s events.
It’s just misleading and instead of acknowledging that you’ve doubled down and its just weird and embarrassing.
Proper corbynista-esque
It is not misleading at all, it was a screenshot of the original tweet reinforcing the point WOS wants Sturgeon to go and today's website post just reinforces that despite your continual absurd previous attempts to deny it
Tories do not even realise they are lying toerags.
1970 was the most interesting election until 2017. The answer is essentially in two parts. First, it was the Powell election. A bit like Corbyn-Brexit in 2017, you could read into Heath-Powell whatever you liked. Some people thought they were voting Tory to send a message that they liked Powell, and they did not expect to end up instead supporting Heath with a big majority. Same way Corbyn was supported by a big seat gain. Second, and not unrelated, it was one of the first big breaches in the class voting system. It seems now like the start of the slow drift away from class and toward race / white racial consciousness as the main identity divide.
I remember campaigning, for the Liberals, in 1970. It wasn't good for us, although we hoped to do better than we did. I don't, TBH, recall Powell as being important where we were. TBH, I don't recall the Labour campaign as being 'inspiring'. Nor were the Tories, but the idea of the EEC was, where I was, quite popular, apart from among elderly Non-Conformists (The Treaty of ROME!!). I don't recall any one big issue, TBH; one of those times when I wish I'd kept a diary!
First election I can recall. Remember George Brown the Deputy Leader losing his Belper seat!
(Brown was the person for whom "tired and emotional" was first coined.)
Indeed. He said something about hoping the constituency would be happy with the new Member. Seemed somewhat T&E at the time.
I’ve been sent an email by the Jewish Labour Movement saying that if I join them as an ally and register as a Labour friend I can vote in the election for leader and deputy leader.
So should I? I did not vote for them under Corbyn. Indeed I have been very critical of Labour under his leadership.
I would only consider doing so in order to vote for a decent leader (not a crap one) because (a) I am not at all enamoured of Boris - to put it at its absolute mildest; (b) the country - and our democracy - needs a viable opposition party not some half-crazed sect; and (c) I feel strongly that the anti-Semitic culture which has developed in Labour needs removing, regardless of whether one votes Labour or not.
But is it right to do so if I am not a Labour member and only an ex-Labour voter from years ago? It feels like gate-crashing a party. (Plus I don’t want my money to go to a party which then elects a nitwit like RLB.) On the other hand, this is what the rules permit.
So what does the PB ethics committee think, o wise ones?
If you want to vote for the person you think will be best for the party I don't see a problem. It is only if you were joining for nefarious reasons that you would be morally on shaky ground.
Thank you. I think Nandy and Starmer look interesting. Phillips too. And Rayner. But I still feel as it is a bit of political cross-dressing too far. Anyway, have a day or two to decide.
If there aren’t any workers what’s the point of the trade union?
it's become a support mechanism for former miners
Ah. So that’s what Ian Lavery was doing.
I think calling what he did ‘supporting former miners’ would be about as accurate as calling Corbyn’s actions ‘tackling antisemitism head on.’
I was being sarcastic ......
Although - to be devil’s advocate - Lavery is a former miner, so I suppose he was supporting former miners after a fashion...
I spoke to a friend who is involved with Labour in the NE. She said Lavery was never a miner. He worked at a colliery. But apparently his being a miner is a carefully crafted falsehood.
You don't have to have been a miner to be in the NUM. Plenty of other roles in the industry.
Government working towards 2050 Net Zero by propping up domestic flying.
Joined up government is a wonderful thing.
A single airline going bust will not reduce the number of flights - the slots will be filled by competitors within days.
The 2050 target is planned to be accomplished, for aviation, by a combination of offsets and bio-fuels. Bio-fuels are the solution in train at the moment. There are some other possibilities that might also work.
1970 was the most interesting election until 2017. The answer is essentially in two parts. First, it was the Powell election. A bit like Corbyn-Brexit in 2017, you could read into Heath-Powell whatever you liked. Some people thought they were voting Tory to send a message that they liked Powell, and they did not expect to end up instead supporting Heath with a big majority. Same way Corbyn was supported by a big seat gain. Second, and not unrelated, it was one of the first big breaches in the class voting system. It seems now like the start of the slow drift away from class and toward race / white racial consciousness as the main identity divide.
I remember campaigning, for the Liberals, in 1970. It wasn't good for us, although we hoped to do better than we did. I don't, TBH, recall Powell as being important where we were. TBH, I don't recall the Labour campaign as being 'inspiring'. Nor were the Tories, but the idea of the EEC was, where I was, quite popular, apart from among elderly Non-Conformists (The Treaty of ROME!!). I don't recall any one big issue, TBH; one of those times when I wish I'd kept a diary!
Powell was certainly still popular with some in Wolverhampton for some time after.
My wife, who kept her own maiden name, stood for the council in the mid 1980s and got elected by a landslide. She was standing for a ward in Powell's old constituency. They also share a surname (she is Welsh). The day after the election, two old ladies came up to her in the street and congratulated her on her election. One volunteered "we voted for you because we liked your father". She had been elected as the Labour candidate.
If there aren’t any workers what’s the point of the trade union?
it's become a support mechanism for former miners
Ah. So that’s what Ian Lavery was doing.
I think calling what he did ‘supporting former miners’ would be about as accurate as calling Corbyn’s actions ‘tackling antisemitism head on.’
I was being sarcastic ......
Although - to be devil’s advocate - Lavery is a former miner, so I suppose he was supporting former miners after a fashion...
I spoke to a friend who is involved with Labour in the NE. She said Lavery was never a miner. He worked at a colliery. But apparently his being a miner is a carefully crafted falsehood.
You don't have to have been a miner to be in the NUM. Plenty of other roles in the industry.
Of course. But Lavery apparently puts it about that he was a miner.
Here's a nasty thought. In 1964 there was an election and Labour won a majority of 4. In 1966 there was another election and Labour won a majority of 97. In 1970 they were expected to win but they actually lost, with Con getting a majority of 31. Why did the Conservatives win in 1970? Genuine question.
Gordon Banks' tummy is the usual explanation.
ETA iirc there was also a bad balance of trade figure announced just beforehand in the days when anyone cared.
Yes, BBC TV would highlight the balance of payments figures every month like the temperature of a chronically-sick patient. Productivity was flagging and days lost through industrial unrest (the "British Disease") were mounting. Wilson and Castle tried to address the problem in a white paper, In Place of Strife which provoked widespread opposition in the wider Labour movement and may have contributed to a loss of support. Even so, the election result took everyone by surprise.
From Autumn 1967 to late Summer 1969 the Labour Government was very unpopular indeed with the Tory lead reaching 28% in Spring 1968. At the May 1968 Local Elections the Tories won control of Hackney, Lambeth , Islington as well as Sheffield, Manchester, Liverpool and Norwich. The concensus amomgst commentators at the beginning of 1969 was that the Tories were likely to win the following election by a majority nearer to 200 than 100. Labour did recover in the Autumn of 1969 , but did not regain any lead until April 1970. Surprisingly good Local Election results in May then generated a sudden polling boost with Gallup putting Labour 7.5% ahead. Wilson sought to take advantage - and the rest is history. Labour's polling recovery was too shallow to survive the campaign. Overall the 1966 - 70 Parliament saw the most unpopular Government until the 1992 - 1997 Parliament under Major.
Wiki is almost completely lacking in details about the 1970 local elections apart from the GLC and Cardiff.
1970 was County Council election year , which until the reorganisation of Local Government a few years later meant two sets of Local Elections - the County Councils were elected in April followed by the City and Urban authorities a month later. Labour performed pretty poorly at the April County Council elections - despite regaining control of the Inner London Education Authority - ILEA . The party performed much better at the May Local Elections.
If there aren’t any workers what’s the point of the trade union?
it's become a support mechanism for former miners
Ah. So that’s what Ian Lavery was doing.
I think calling what he did ‘supporting former miners’ would be about as accurate as calling Corbyn’s actions ‘tackling antisemitism head on.’
I was being sarcastic ......
Although - to be devil’s advocate - Lavery is a former miner, so I suppose he was supporting former miners after a fashion...
I spoke to a friend who is involved with Labour in the NE. She said Lavery was never a miner. He worked at a colliery. But apparently his being a miner is a carefully crafted falsehood.
You don't have to have been a miner to be in the NUM. Plenty of other roles in the industry.
Of course. But Lavery apparently puts it about that he was a miner.
Maybe he was mining for the union’s money (allegedly).......
HYUFD never admits he is wrong. It’s one of the immutable laws of PB.
That may be true, but he was annoyingly right about Boris and the general election, so it would be silly not to pay heed to what he says.
I’m not saying he is never right. But he is also sometimes wrong, and contorts to an alarming degree to avoid admitting it.
I agree, but on the recent big events and issues he's been more right than almost anyone else who posts on here. So even if he does drive you round the bend with his posting he is still worth listening to, as he seems to read the zeitgeist a lot better than I certainly can.
ETA iirc there was also a bad balance of trade figure announced just beforehand in the days when anyone cared.
Yes, BBC TV would highlight the balance of payments figures every month like the temperature of a chronically-sick patient. Productivity was flagging and days lost through industrial unrest (the "British Disease") were mounting. Wilson and Castle tried to address the problem in a white paper, In Place of Strife which provoked widespread opposition in the wider Labour movement and may have contributed to a loss of support. Even so, the election result took everyone by surprise.
From Autumn 1967 to late Summer 1969 the Labour Government was very unpopular indeed with the Tory lead reaching 28% in Spring 1968. At the May 1968 Local Elections the Tories won control of Hackney, Lambeth , Islington as well as Sheffield, Manchester, Liverpool and Norwich. The concensus amomgst commentators at the beginning of 1969 was that the Tories were likely to win the following election by a majority nearer to 200 than 100. Labour did recover in the Autumn of 1969 , but did not regain any lead until April 1970. Surprisingly good Local Election results in May then generated a sudden polling boost with Gallup putting Labour 7.5% ahead. Wilson sought to take advantage - and the rest is history. Labour's polling recovery was too shallow to survive the campaign. Overall the 1966 - 70 Parliament saw the most unpopular Government until the 1992 - 1997 Parliament under Major.
Wiki is almost completely lacking in details about the 1970 local elections apart from the GLC and Cardiff.
1970 was County Council election year , which until the reorganisation of Local Government a few years later meant two sets of Local Elections - the County Councils were elected in April followed by the City and Urban authorities a month later. Labour performed pretty poorly at the April County Council elections - despite regaining control of the Inner London Education Authority - ILEA . The party performed much better at the May Local Elections.
I'd be intersted in seeing the details of those 1970 local elections.
As I said even wiki is almost utterly vague about them.
Here's a nasty thought. In 1964 there was an election and Labour won a majority of 4. In 1966 there was another election and Labour won a majority of 97. In 1970 they were expected to win but they actually lost, with Con getting a majority of 31. Why did the Conservatives win in 1970? Genuine question.
Peter Bonetti.
Naahhh. I've heard that rumour lots of times but just don't believe it. You don't overturn a 98 seat majority on a footy match
An interesting test of the football theory might be to compare the swing in England with that in Scotland and Wales.
Government working towards 2050 Net Zero by propping up domestic flying.
Joined up government is a wonderful thing.
A single airline going bust will not reduce the number of flights - the slots will be filled by competitors within days.
The 2050 target is planned to be accomplished, for aviation, by a combination of offsets and bio-fuels. Bio-fuels are the solution in train at the moment. There are some other possibilities that might also work.
Like catching a train instead of a domestic flight.
Carbon offsets are the eco-equivalent of Papal indulgences.
And biofuels are another bit of smoke-and-mirrors.
I’ve been sent an email by the Jewish Labour Movement saying that if I join them as an ally and register as a Labour friend I can vote in the election for leader and deputy leader.
So should I? I did not vote for them under Corbyn. Indeed I have been very critical of Labour under his leadership.
I would only consider doing so in order to vote for a decent leader (not a crap one) because (a) I am not at all enamoured of Boris - to put it at its absolute mildest; (b) the country - and our democracy - needs a viable opposition party not some half-crazed sect; and (c) I feel strongly that the anti-Semitic culture which has developed in Labour needs removing, regardless of whether one votes Labour or not.
But is it right to do so if I am not a Labour member and only an ex-Labour voter from years ago? It feels like gate-crashing a party. (Plus I don’t want my money to go to a party which then elects a nitwit like RLB.) On the other hand, this is what the rules permit.
So what does the PB ethics committee think, o wise ones?
If you want to vote for the person you think will be best for the party I don't see a problem. It is only if you were joining for nefarious reasons that you would be morally on shaky ground.
I mean, it's not like Ms. Cyclefree is voting for Corbyn.....
Government working towards 2050 Net Zero by propping up domestic flying.
Joined up government is a wonderful thing.
A single airline going bust will not reduce the number of flights - the slots will be filled by competitors within days.
The 2050 target is planned to be accomplished, for aviation, by a combination of offsets and bio-fuels. Bio-fuels are the solution in train at the moment. There are some other possibilities that might also work.
The flight duty is a pile of garbage.
We have crap rail and roads - flights around the Uk are a reasonable option.
A lot of hope had been invested in the Labour Government elected in 1964 - and re-elected in 1966. After 13 years of Tory rule, many were looking forward to significant radical change . In the event, the Government was held back by the Balance of Payments problem and the need to defend sterling via repeated packages of deflationary policies - including a six months Wage Freeze introduced in July 1966. The sense of persistent economic crisis did wear people down and led to serious disillusionment. At the 1966 election Wilson had succeeded in persuading the country that his Government was clearing up the mess inherited from the Tories in October 1964, but in November 1967 he was forced to devalue the pound despite having spent three years resisting such a move. His credibility plummetted thereafter - though he remained quite popular in personal terms particularly in relation to Ted Heath. I have never quite understood why someone with Wilson's supposedly brilliant brain re-economics did not simply allow Sterling to float - as happened under Heath in June 1972. Had he done so, he could have avoided much of the unpopularity related to the deflationary policies needed to defend the pound.
If there aren’t any workers what’s the point of the trade union?
it's become a support mechanism for former miners
Ah. So that’s what Ian Lavery was doing.
I think calling what he did ‘supporting former miners’ would be about as accurate as calling Corbyn’s actions ‘tackling antisemitism head on.’
I was being sarcastic ......
Although - to be devil’s advocate - Lavery is a former miner, so I suppose he was supporting former miners after a fashion...
I spoke to a friend who is involved with Labour in the NE. She said Lavery was never a miner. He worked at a colliery. But apparently his being a miner is a carefully crafted falsehood.
You don't have to have been a miner to be in the NUM. Plenty of other roles in the industry.
Of course. But Lavery apparently puts it about that he was a miner.
Maybe he was mining for the union’s money (allegedly).......
If there aren’t any workers what’s the point of the trade union?
it's become a support mechanism for former miners
Ah. So that’s what Ian Lavery was doing.
I think calling what he did ‘supporting former miners’ would be about as accurate as calling Corbyn’s actions ‘tackling antisemitism head on.’
I was being sarcastic ......
Although - to be devil’s advocate - Lavery is a former miner, so I suppose he was supporting former miners after a fashion...
I spoke to a friend who is involved with Labour in the NE. She said Lavery was never a miner. He worked at a colliery. But apparently his being a miner is a carefully crafted falsehood.
You don't have to have been a miner to be in the NUM. Plenty of other roles in the industry.
Of course. But Lavery apparently puts it about that he was a miner.
Are you sure he didn't say "I used to be a minor"?
I’ve been sent an email by the Jewish Labour Movement saying that if I join them as an ally and register as a Labour friend I can vote in the election for leader and deputy leader.
So should I? I did not vote for them under Corbyn. Indeed I have been very critical of Labour under his leadership.
I would only consider doing so in order to vote for a decent leader (not a crap one) because (a) I am not at all enamoured of Boris - to put it at its absolute mildest; (b) the country - and our democracy - needs a viable opposition party not some half-crazed sect; and (c) I feel strongly that the anti-Semitic culture which has developed in Labour needs removing, regardless of whether one votes Labour or not.
But is it right to do so if I am not a Labour member and only an ex-Labour voter from years ago? It feels like gate-crashing a party. (Plus I don’t want my money to go to a party which then elects a nitwit like RLB.) On the other hand, this is what the rules permit.
So what does the PB ethics committee think, o wise ones?
If you want to vote for the person you think will be best for the party I don't see a problem. It is only if you were joining for nefarious reasons that you would be morally on shaky ground.
Thank you. I think Nandy and Starmer look interesting. Phillips too. And Rayner. But I still feel as it is a bit of political cross-dressing too far. Anyway, have a day or two to decide.
Surely you would never join a party that invited you...
A lot of hope had been invested in the Labour Government elected in 1964 - and re-elected in 1966. After 13 years of Tory rule, many were looking forward to significant radical change . In the event, the Government was held back by the Balance of Payments problem and the need to defend sterling via repeated packages of deflationary policies - including a six months Wage Freeze introduced in July 1966. The sense of persistent economic crisis did wear people down and led to serious disillusionment. At the 1966 election Wilson had succeeded in persuading the country that his Government was clearing up the mess inherited from the Tories in October 1964, but in November 1967 he was forced to devalue the pound despite having spent three years resisting such a move. His credibility plummetted thereafter - though he remained quite popular in personal terms particularly in relation to Ted Heath. I have never quite understood why someone with Wilson's supposedly brilliant brain re-economics did not simply allow Sterling to float - as happened under Heath in June 1972. Had he done so, he could have avoided much of the unpopularity related to the deflationary policies needed to defend the pound.
It was doing pretty ok until Powell threw a firebomb on the political stage with immigration.
About Sterling, politicians have always been against floating currencies and devaluations, they like the ERM and the Euro, the political excuse is always "We have the strongest currency in the world, ergo we are the strongest nation on earth", it's a pride issue so it's very silly.
A lot of hope had been invested in the Labour Government elected in 1964 - and re-elected in 1966. After 13 years of Tory rule, many were looking forward to significant radical change . In the event, the Government was held back by the Balance of Payments problem and the need to defend sterling via repeated packages of deflationary policies - including a six months Wage Freeze introduced in July 1966. The sense of persistent economic crisis did wear people down and led to serious disillusionment. At the 1966 election Wilson had succeeded in persuading the country that his Government was clearing up the mess inherited from the Tories in October 1964, but in November 1967 he was forced to devalue the pound despite having spent three years resisting such a move. His credibility plummetted thereafter - though he remained quite popular in personal terms particularly in relation to Ted Heath. I have never quite understood why someone with Wilson's supposedly brilliant brain re-economics did not simply allow Sterling to float - as happened under Heath in June 1972. Had he done so, he could have avoided much of the unpopularity related to the deflationary policies needed to defend the pound.
Because the entire world had signed up to Bretton Woods, where currencies were pegged to the Dollar.
(As an aside, one of the consequences of Bretton Woods is that countries didn't run persistent trade or current account deficits.)
I’ve been sent an email by the Jewish Labour Movement saying that if I join them as an ally and register as a Labour friend I can vote in the election for leader and deputy leader.
So should I? I did not vote for them under Corbyn. Indeed I have been very critical of Labour under his leadership.
I would only consider doing so in order to vote for a decent leader (not a crap one) because (a) I am not at all enamoured of Boris - to put it at its absolute mildest; (b) the country - and our democracy - needs a viable opposition party not some half-crazed sect; and (c) I feel strongly that the anti-Semitic culture which has developed in Labour needs removing, regardless of whether one votes Labour or not.
But is it right to do so if I am not a Labour member and only an ex-Labour voter from years ago? It feels like gate-crashing a party. (Plus I don’t want my money to go to a party which then elects a nitwit like RLB.) On the other hand, this is what the rules permit.
So what does the PB ethics committee think, o wise ones?
If you want to vote for the person you think will be best for the party I don't see a problem. It is only if you were joining for nefarious reasons that you would be morally on shaky ground.
Thank you. I think Nandy and Starmer look interesting. Phillips too. And Rayner. But I still feel as it is a bit of political cross-dressing too far. Anyway, have a day or two to decide.
Surely you would never join a party that invited you...
Well, it’s not Labour which has asked me. Only the Jewish Labour Movement. And being their ally does seem to me to be worthwhile.
I have never ever joined a political party in any capacity whatsoever so this feels very un-Cyclefree-ish indeed. Dilemmas, eh?
A lot of hope had been invested in the Labour Government elected in 1964 - and re-elected in 1966. After 13 years of Tory rule, many were looking forward to significant radical change . In the event, the Government was held back by the Balance of Payments problem and the need to defend sterling via repeated packages of deflationary policies - including a six months Wage Freeze introduced in July 1966. The sense of persistent economic crisis did wear people down and led to serious disillusionment. At the 1966 election Wilson had succeeded in persuading the country that his Government was clearing up the mess inherited from the Tories in October 1964, but in November 1967 he was forced to devalue the pound despite having spent three years resisting such a move. His credibility plummetted thereafter - though he remained quite popular in personal terms particularly in relation to Ted Heath. I have never quite understood why someone with Wilson's supposedly brilliant brain re-economics did not simply allow Sterling to float - as happened under Heath in June 1972. Had he done so, he could have avoided much of the unpopularity related to the deflationary policies needed to defend the pound.
Because the entire world had signed up to Bretton Woods, where currencies were pegged to the Dollar.
(As an aside, one of the consequences of Bretton Woods is that countries didn't run persistent trade or current account deficits.)
Indeed - but subsequent events were to demonstrate that departing from Bretton Woods was a realistic policy option.The Smithsonian Agreement in late 1971 was followed a few months later by Heath and Barber allowing sterling to float.
If there aren’t any workers what’s the point of the trade union?
it's become a support mechanism for former miners
Ah. So that’s what Ian Lavery was doing.
I think calling what he did ‘supporting former miners’ would be about as accurate as calling Corbyn’s actions ‘tackling antisemitism head on.’
I was being sarcastic ......
Although - to be devil’s advocate - Lavery is a former miner, so I suppose he was supporting former miners after a fashion...
I spoke to a friend who is involved with Labour in the NE. She said Lavery was never a miner. He worked at a colliery. But apparently his being a miner is a carefully crafted falsehood.
You don't have to have been a miner to be in the NUM. Plenty of other roles in the industry.
Of course. But Lavery apparently puts it about that he was a miner.
Are you sure he didn't say "I used to be a minor"?
I’ve been sent an email by the Jewish Labour Movement saying that if I join them as an ally and register as a Labour friend I can vote in the election for leader and deputy leader.
So should I? I did not vote for them under Corbyn. Indeed I have been very critical of Labour under his leadership.
I would only consider doing so in order to vote for a decent leader (not a crap one) because (a) I am not at all enamoured of Boris - to put it at its absolute mildest; (b) the country - and our democracy - needs a viable opposition party not some half-crazed sect; and (c) I feel strongly that the anti-Semitic culture which has developed in Labour needs removing, regardless of whether one votes Labour or not.
But is it right to do so if I am not a Labour member and only an ex-Labour voter from years ago? It feels like gate-crashing a party. (Plus I don’t want my money to go to a party which then elects a nitwit like RLB.) On the other hand, this is what the rules permit.
So what does the PB ethics committee think, o wise ones?
If you want to vote for the person you think will be best for the party I don't see a problem. It is only if you were joining for nefarious reasons that you would be morally on shaky ground.
Thank you. I think Nandy and Starmer look interesting. Phillips too. And Rayner. But I still feel as it is a bit of political cross-dressing too far. Anyway, have a day or two to decide.
Surely you would never join a party that invited you...
Well, it’s not Labour which has asked me. Only the Jewish Labour Movement. And being their ally does seem to me to be worthwhile.
I have never ever joined a political party in any capacity whatsoever so this feels very un-Cyclefree-ish indeed. Dilemmas, eh?
Indeed it is possible to join the JLM as an Ally, if not Jewish, and this does seem to give voting rights.
A lot of hope had been invested in the Labour Government elected in 1964 - and re-elected in 1966. After 13 years of Tory rule, many were looking forward to significant radical change . In the event, the Government was held back by the Balance of Payments problem and the need to defend sterling via repeated packages of deflationary policies - including a six months Wage Freeze introduced in July 1966. The sense of persistent economic crisis did wear people down and led to serious disillusionment. At the 1966 election Wilson had succeeded in persuading the country that his Government was clearing up the mess inherited from the Tories in October 1964, but in November 1967 he was forced to devalue the pound despite having spent three years resisting such a move. His credibility plummetted thereafter - though he remained quite popular in personal terms particularly in relation to Ted Heath. I have never quite understood why someone with Wilson's supposedly brilliant brain re-economics did not simply allow Sterling to float - as happened under Heath in June 1972. Had he done so, he could have avoided much of the unpopularity related to the deflationary policies needed to defend the pound.
Because the entire world had signed up to Bretton Woods, where currencies were pegged to the Dollar.
(As an aside, one of the consequences of Bretton Woods is that countries didn't run persistent trade or current account deficits.)
They couldn't run them without defaulting from a lack of dollars and gold, which was why America left the system because France and West Germany where sucking all it's gold reserves dry in the late 1960's.
The instability of the gold market was the inspiration for Goldfinger.
A lot of hope had been invested in the Labour Government elected in 1964 - and re-elected in 1966. After 13 years of Tory rule, many were looking forward to significant radical change . In the event, the Government was held back by the Balance of Payments problem and the need to defend sterling via repeated packages of deflationary policies - including a six months Wage Freeze introduced in July 1966. The sense of persistent economic crisis did wear people down and led to serious disillusionment. At the 1966 election Wilson had succeeded in persuading the country that his Government was clearing up the mess inherited from the Tories in October 1964, but in November 1967 he was forced to devalue the pound despite having spent three years resisting such a move. His credibility plummetted thereafter - though he remained quite popular in personal terms particularly in relation to Ted Heath. I have never quite understood why someone with Wilson's supposedly brilliant brain re-economics did not simply allow Sterling to float - as happened under Heath in June 1972. Had he done so, he could have avoided much of the unpopularity related to the deflationary policies needed to defend the pound.
Because the entire world had signed up to Bretton Woods, where currencies were pegged to the Dollar.
(As an aside, one of the consequences of Bretton Woods is that countries didn't run persistent trade or current account deficits.)
Indeed - but subsequent events were to demonstrate that departing from Bretton Woods was a realistic policy option.The Smithsonian Agreement in late 1971 was followed a few months later by Heath and Barber allowing sterling to float.
I would argue that a great many of the world's problems were caused by leaving Bretton Woods. It forced countries to live within their means. Once that was taken away, countries were free to run up imbalances that got ever bigger.
It was like having the limit on your credit card taken away - it seemed like a good idea at the time, but ultimately the bill needs to get paid.
If there aren’t any workers what’s the point of the trade union?
it's become a support mechanism for former miners
Ah. So that’s what Ian Lavery was doing.
I think calling what he did ‘supporting former miners’ would be about as accurate as calling Corbyn’s actions ‘tackling antisemitism head on.’
I was being sarcastic ......
Although - to be devil’s advocate - Lavery is a former miner, so I suppose he was supporting former miners after a fashion...
I spoke to a friend who is involved with Labour in the NE. She said Lavery was never a miner. He worked at a colliery. But apparently his being a miner is a carefully crafted falsehood.
You don't have to have been a miner to be in the NUM. Plenty of other roles in the industry.
Of course. But Lavery apparently puts it about that he was a miner.
Are you sure he didn't say "I used to be a minor"?
A lot of hope had been invested in the Labour Government elected in 1964 - and re-elected in 1966. After 13 years of Tory rule, many were looking forward to significant radical change . In the event, the Government was held back by the Balance of Payments problem and the need to defend sterling via repeated packages of deflationary policies - including a six months Wage Freeze introduced in July 1966. The sense of persistent economic crisis did wear people down and led to serious disillusionment. At the 1966 election Wilson had succeeded in persuading the country that his Government was clearing up the mess inherited from the Tories in October 1964, but in November 1967 he was forced to devalue the pound despite having spent three years resisting such a move. His credibility plummetted thereafter - though he remained quite popular in personal terms particularly in relation to Ted Heath. I have never quite understood why someone with Wilson's supposedly brilliant brain re-economics did not simply allow Sterling to float - as happened under Heath in June 1972. Had he done so, he could have avoided much of the unpopularity related to the deflationary policies needed to defend the pound.
Because the entire world had signed up to Bretton Woods, where currencies were pegged to the Dollar.
(As an aside, one of the consequences of Bretton Woods is that countries didn't run persistent trade or current account deficits.)
They couldn't run them without defaulting from a lack of dollars and gold, which was why America left the system because France and West Germany where sucking all it's gold reserves dry in the late 1960's.
The instabillity of the gold market was the inspiration for Goldfinger.
It's a bit more complicated than that.
Until the US ran massive deficits due to the Vietnam War (and the Great Society) then there was no disappearance of US gold reserves.
A lot of hope had been invested in the Labour Government elected in 1964 - and re-elected in 1966. After 13 years of Tory rule, many were looking forward to significant radical change . In the event, the Government was held back by the Balance of Payments problem and the need to defend sterling via repeated packages of deflationary policies - including a six months Wage Freeze introduced in July 1966. The sense of persistent economic crisis did wear people down and led to serious disillusionment. At the 1966 election Wilson had succeeded in persuading the country that his Government was clearing up the mess inherited from the Tories in October 1964, but in November 1967 he was forced to devalue the pound despite having spent three years resisting such a move. His credibility plummetted thereafter - though he remained quite popular in personal terms particularly in relation to Ted Heath. I have never quite understood why someone with Wilson's supposedly brilliant brain re-economics did not simply allow Sterling to float - as happened under Heath in June 1972. Had he done so, he could have avoided much of the unpopularity related to the deflationary policies needed to defend the pound.
Because the entire world had signed up to Bretton Woods, where currencies were pegged to the Dollar.
(As an aside, one of the consequences of Bretton Woods is that countries didn't run persistent trade or current account deficits.)
They couldn't run them without defaulting from a lack of dollars and gold, which was why America left the system because France and West Germany where sucking all it's gold reserves dry in the late 1960's.
The instabillity of the gold market was the inspiration for Goldfinger.
It's a bit more complicated than that.
Until the US ran massive deficits due to the Vietnam War (and the Great Society) then there was no disappearance of US gold reserves.
Yeap, in the late 1960's with France, West Germany and Switzerland the main beneficiaries.
If a system is so vulnerable as to make a fantasy movie about a supervillain tampering with Fort Knox to blow the world economy up a realistic proposition, then it's a silly system and we are all better without it.
A lot of hope had been invested in the Labour Government elected in 1964 - and re-elected in 1966. After 13 years of Tory rule, many were looking forward to significant radical change . In the event, the Government was held back by the Balance of Payments problem and the need to defend sterling via repeated packages of deflationary policies - including a six months Wage Freeze introduced in July 1966. The sense of persistent economic crisis did wear people down and led to serious disillusionment. At the 1966 election Wilson had succeeded in persuading the country that his Government was clearing up the mess inherited from the Tories in October 1964, but in November 1967 he was forced to devalue the pound despite having spent three years resisting such a move. His credibility plummetted thereafter - though he remained quite popular in personal terms particularly in relation to Ted Heath. I have never quite understood why someone with Wilson's supposedly brilliant brain re-economics did not simply allow Sterling to float - as happened under Heath in June 1972. Had he done so, he could have avoided much of the unpopularity related to the deflationary policies needed to defend the pound.
Because the entire world had signed up to Bretton Woods, where currencies were pegged to the Dollar.
(As an aside, one of the consequences of Bretton Woods is that countries didn't run persistent trade or current account deficits.)
Indeed - but subsequent events were to demonstrate that departing from Bretton Woods was a realistic policy option.The Smithsonian Agreement in late 1971 was followed a few months later by Heath and Barber allowing sterling to float.
I would argue that a great many of the world's problems were caused by leaving Bretton Woods. It forced countries to live within their means. Once that was taken away, countries were free to run up imbalances that got ever bigger.
It was like having the limit on your credit card taken away - it seemed like a good idea at the time, but ultimately the bill needs to get paid.
You can't have a system like that, they are too rigid. Bretton Woods was designed for a world in 1945, by 1973 it was outdated.
The Euro is another example of the disaster of fixed currencies over a long time period, only Ireland has fully recovered because it's an offshore tax haven island.
A lot of hope had been invested in the Labour Government elected in 1964 - and re-elected in 1966. After 13 years of Tory rule, many were looking forward to significant radical change . In the event, the Government was held back by the Balance of Payments problem and the need to defend sterling via repeated packages of deflationary policies - including a six months Wage Freeze introduced in July 1966. The sense of persistent economic crisis did wear people down and led to serious disillusionment. At the 1966 election Wilson had succeeded in persuading the country that his Government was clearing up the mess inherited from the Tories in October 1964, but in November 1967 he was forced to devalue the pound despite having spent three years resisting such a move. His credibility plummetted thereafter - though he remained quite popular in personal terms particularly in relation to Ted Heath. I have never quite understood why someone with Wilson's supposedly brilliant brain re-economics did not simply allow Sterling to float - as happened under Heath in June 1972. Had he done so, he could have avoided much of the unpopularity related to the deflationary policies needed to defend the pound.
Because the entire world had signed up to Bretton Woods, where currencies were pegged to the Dollar.
(As an aside, one of the consequences of Bretton Woods is that countries didn't run persistent trade or current account deficits.)
Indeed - but subsequent events were to demonstrate that departing from Bretton Woods was a realistic policy option.The Smithsonian Agreement in late 1971 was followed a few months later by Heath and Barber allowing sterling to float.
I would argue that a great many of the world's problems were caused by leaving Bretton Woods. It forced countries to live within their means. Once that was taken away, countries were free to run up imbalances that got ever bigger.
It was like having the limit on your credit card taken away - it seemed like a good idea at the time, but ultimately the bill needs to get paid.
only Ireland has fully recovered because it's an offshore tax haven island.
Comments
As for the discussion about the role of the Beatles, what is definitely true is that the Marine Offences Act put Labour in the same category as the squares.
IIRC, AndyJS's BBC video has a very interesting section filmed in a 1970 nightclub.
Jim Dance was the MP.
So should I? I did not vote for them under Corbyn. Indeed I have been very critical of Labour under his leadership.
I would only consider doing so in order to vote for a decent leader (not a crap one) because (a) I am not at all enamoured of Boris - to put it at its absolute mildest; (b) the country - and our democracy - needs a viable opposition party not some half-crazed sect; and (c) I feel strongly that the anti-Semitic culture which has developed in Labour needs removing, regardless of whether one votes Labour or not.
But is it right to do so if I am not a Labour member and only an ex-Labour voter from years ago? It feels like gate-crashing a party. (Plus I don’t want my money to go to a party which then elects a nitwit like RLB.) On the other hand, this is what the rules permit.
So what does the PB ethics committee think, o wise ones?
to get on the leadership ballot through the affiliates route, candidates need 3 affiliates, 2 of them must be unions, represting 5% of the affiliated membership
The affiliated unions are
ASLEF . Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers
BFAWU - Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union
Community
CWU - Communication Workers Union
FBU - Fire Brigades Union
GMB
MU - Musicians Union
NUM -National Union of Mineworkers (Nandy)
TSSA - Transport Salaried Staffs’ Association
Unison (Starmer and Rayner)
Unite
USDAW - Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers
The other affiliates are
BAME Labour
Chinese for Labour
Christians on the Left
Disability Labour
The Fabian Society
Jewish Labour Movement
Labour Animal Welfare Society
Labour Business
Labour Campaign for International Development
Labour Housing Group
Labour Movement for Europe
Labour Party Irish Society
Labour Students
Labour Women's Networks
LGBT Labour
Scientists for Labour
Socialist Educational Association
SERA - Labour's Environment Campaign
The Socialist Health Association
Society for Labour Lawyers
To achive the 5% threshold, they need to have one of Unite, Unison, Usdaw, GMB or CWU. No other combination should take them over the 5%.
So one big union + one other union (regardless of how small) + any kind of Socialist Society is enough.
Other solution to get on the ballot is getting 33 CLPs nominations.
(Brown was the person for whom "tired and emotional" was first coined.)
The rural thing was a more long-term trend. The urban think was chalked up to Powell. In places like Dudley and Sandwell and Walsall, 1970 was a high point in the postwar era that was only exceeded last December.
They also did well at the sharp end of race politics, in the bits of London that had recently been Essex, where the NF were on the rise, not just the usual Tory-East London places we think of nowadays but also Newham.
Joined up government is a wonderful thing.
Don't like Boris? Did you not see him with Dan Walker? He was sublime...or do I mean ridiculous?
Good night.
Neither of which were good for Labour:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970_Cardiff_City_Council_election
The 2050 target is planned to be accomplished, for aviation, by a combination of offsets and bio-fuels. Bio-fuels are the solution in train at the moment. There are some other possibilities that might also work.
My wife, who kept her own maiden name, stood for the council in the mid 1980s and got elected by a landslide. She was standing for a ward in Powell's old constituency. They also share a surname (she is Welsh). The day after the election, two old ladies came up to her in the street and congratulated her on her election. One volunteered "we voted for you because we liked your father". She had been elected as the Labour candidate.
True story.
As I said even wiki is almost utterly vague about them.
Carbon offsets are the eco-equivalent of Papal indulgences.
And biofuels are another bit of smoke-and-mirrors.
We have crap rail and roads - flights around the Uk are a reasonable option.
I have never quite understood why someone with Wilson's supposedly brilliant brain re-economics did not simply allow Sterling to float - as happened under Heath in June 1972. Had he done so, he could have avoided much of the unpopularity related to the deflationary policies needed to defend the pound.
Are domestic flights getting more expensive?
About Sterling, politicians have always been against floating currencies and devaluations, they like the ERM and the Euro, the political excuse is always "We have the strongest currency in the world, ergo we are the strongest nation on earth", it's a pride issue so it's very silly.
(As an aside, one of the consequences of Bretton Woods is that countries didn't run persistent trade or current account deficits.)
I have never ever joined a political party in any capacity whatsoever so this feels very un-Cyclefree-ish indeed. Dilemmas, eh?
His actual words were: “I used to be a myna.”
https://www.jewishlabour.uk/membership
The instability of the gold market was the inspiration for Goldfinger.
It was like having the limit on your credit card taken away - it seemed like a good idea at the time, but ultimately the bill needs to get paid.
Until the US ran massive deficits due to the Vietnam War (and the Great Society) then there was no disappearance of US gold reserves.
Also, no fucking point in the UK doing anything cos the rest of the world will just ignore us.
https://twitter.com/BDStanley/status/1217212819789295616?s=20
If a system is so vulnerable as to make a fantasy movie about a supervillain tampering with Fort Knox to blow the world economy up a realistic proposition, then it's a silly system and we are all better without it.
Bretton Woods was designed for a world in 1945, by 1973 it was outdated.
The Euro is another example of the disaster of fixed currencies over a long time period, only Ireland has fully recovered because it's an offshore tax haven island.