I Iove this from the Guardian long read on the failure of the Tory electoral machine (link below as it will not embed:apologies):
“It's a very long time since Britain lived under anything like socialism,” says Paul Goodman, editor of the influential Tory website ConservativeHome. “There probably hasn't been a leftwing government since the 1945 [Labour] one. So it's getting harder and harder to convince young people, especially, that socialism is a threat.”
I really want to know what the threat was.
Was it the creation of the NHS?
Or a massive expansion of free education?
Or the creation of the welfare state?
Or the biggest modernisation of British industry in a short period in this country's history?
Or council housing?
Heaven forbid that it was full employment.
And rising prosperity.
Plus a fairer society.
Try as I might I cannot see how any rational person can identify a 'threat'. What is he talking about?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/26/tory-election-machine-fell-apart-negative-tactics
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
But, but they confiscated people’s unprofitable railway shares and coal mines and paid them a more than fair market price in return. The bastards!
That was a serious error on their part
But let’s be clear, it paid for itself
They started the national debt tumbling downward
Yes and sadly they left all the same crowd of over privileged poor (mis)managers to run it – badly
Well that would be the threat that every right wing libertarian see’s in what they refer to as big – or indeed almost any – form of government. E.g. The threat to the ability of the wealthy to treat anyone of lesser means with utter contempt, and to be able to visit pain and suffering on them without the worry (threat) that they might be prosecuted for it. The threat to businesses who wish to operate without bothering about the safety and wellbeing of their workers. The threat to the ability of lobbyist to lobby for anything they are paid for without having to consider the ethical and moral dimension of what they do, etc. In short, anything that curtails the ability of those who want to – those of a right wing, neoliberal bent specifically – to practice and promote untramelled greed and exploitation under the guise of the supremacy of the “free market” and the authority of those who claim to believe in it.
That’s it
Im very interested how that Labour Govt modernised British Industry?
How did they do that? Can you post some links please.
Otherwise, I agree propaganda about the threat represented by a Left Wing government in the UK is implausible. There’s a receptive constituency for the message amongst the middle-aged and elderly who are enjoying an asset boom i.e rising home-values and buoyant share portfolios. Many of these will not have forgotten the 70s, inflation and so forth. Rocking the boat is absolutely the last thing they want, particularly as they view the Welfare State with scepticism. In other words, they’ve put their faith in private wealth rather than social security.
There’s also the type of Labour politician who writes this sort of thing
“If the proposals in Richard Murphy’s outline of “Corbynomics” sound too good to be true, it’s because they might be.”
And continues
“Second, “rebalancing” the economy by a new state (as opposed to private) investment in individual businesses is likely to fall foul of EU state aid rules, which, in my opinion, shouldn’t be the primary fight with the European Commission at this critical time. While there are remaining problems with access to finance for non-traditional industries in the UK, it is unclear how a big state bank (which elsewhere have been traditionally quite conservative, or just focused on areas like housing) will now become engines for financing innovation in sustain-ability or technology. Would they be willing to pile on that kind of risk?
“Third, Corbynomics posits there’s too much “corporate welfare” — up to £93billion in subsidies and tax breaks to “big business” which could be scrapped and money diverted elsewhere. It’s a large number but, at closer examination, this includes things like credit for asset depreciation and subsidies, grants or tax breaks to stimulate inward investment or help deprived regions, or new industries (for example, the video games industry I work for). Tax breaks should not outlive their purpose and benefit, sure, but we should be careful of sweeping value-judgments about corporate capture of the state or reheating the disastrous producer-predator distinction (as elsewhere Jeremy Corbyn seems to do when talking about entrepreneurs) before we act.
“Fourth, Murphy says there’s a dividend to be got from the tax gap between tax theoretically owed (if everyone did as the law required) and tax collected — by employing an army of new tax inspectors. Every governÂment has promised, and ultimately failed, to bridge this gap, which has stayed constant at between 7 and 8 per cent over the past decade. But are we really saying a magic pot of money can be found for public services if the black market was radically reduced, suddenly tax returns were filed with less error and people aimed to pay the most tax possible rather than limiting liability?
Finally, much as this has been conflated by the anti-austerity movement (and the Tories); action against Greek debt by Europe is not the same as UK public policy or George Osborne’s move to shrink the state. Certainly a more activist state would have helped boost the economy when it was threatening a “triple dip” recession after years of stagnation, but invoking economist Paul Krugman etc to claim everything is bogus doesn’t get us very far.
Well, he got that wrong.
WHat did Labour deliver?
The biggest invetsment in rail and road ever
It transformed energy supply
And delivered mass telecommunication
It built more houses than ever before or since
And set up a nationalised industry that delivered Concorde
And, I admit the Austin Allegro: I am not wholly blinkered, of course
The NHS laid the foundations for our pharmaceutical industry
And of course much oif this was actually delivered in the 50 but it was Butskillism that did it – and none would have happened under Chutchill. It required Attlee.
If that was not transformation, what was?
Good answer. A few more from physics.
Government investment led to the UK leading the world in nuclear power, early computing at Manchester, the development of the ARM chip that is now in everyone’s mobile and tablet, the development of the atomic clock which led to the global positioning system, the development of magnetic resonance imaging at Nottingham. And then there is all the medical research ….. and of course, it was Atlee who initiated the UK’s nuclear deterrent.
Unfortunately, particularly since 2010 our R and D investment has been falling dramatically – we are nowhere near South Korea in terms of percent of GDP. Unless we step up we will fail to build an internationally competitive economy!
My thanks
And all noted
Worth also noting the following, Richard, which makes the accomplishments of the 1945-50 Labour government all the more remarkable.
Attlee’s government inherited horrendous economic problems. Specifically, the abrupt end of the lend-lease programme and a collapsed export market – exports stood at only 48% of what they’d been in 1938 because of the diversion of resources to war production. Additionally £1000 million of investments had been sold during the war significantly weakening the balance of payments. Taken together 28% of Britain’s wealth had been wiped out, while the country’s liabilities had risen to £3,500 million by 1945 (nothing compared to nowadays, of course).
How was this situation turned around? The government loaned $3,750 million from the US and $1,250 million from Canada to fund a three year transition period from a war to a peace time economy largely by concentrating resources in manufacturing industries that were most able to export their goods – resulting in an export led boom. However, it should not be forgotten that even then considerable resources were diverted into maintaining the armed forces, such that it is widely accepted that Labour’s 1945-50 defence policy worked against its economic policy. And – importantly – there was a coal shortage which peaked through the winter of 1946-7. Furthemore, the US loan came with stringent (disadvantageous) conditions attached. Specifically that sterling was convertible into other currencies; the maintenance of a stable exchange rate; and terms of trade that acted against British goods. One outcome was Britain suffered a severe dollar shortage in 1947.
Nevertheless, industrial production recovered to pre-war levels by 1948 and so in 1949 the £ was devalued – after a great deal of soul searching (devaluation was seen at the time as an unpatriotic act). Nevertheless, it was an entirely sensible policy as it simply reflected the fact that the US now had economic supremacy, and it led to a further boost to UK exports. Balance of payments improved but Attlee’s government accepted that devaluation required a period of deflation and then called an election early in 1950 before the benefical consequences of that policy started to emerge (given the behaviour of Tory governments since then it’s worth noting that Attlee’s Chancellor, Stafford Cripps, thought it ‘improper’ to present a potentially election winning budget in the spring of 1950).
The result is history, as they say. Labour’s majority was cut to five. But to make matters worse resources were then diverted into a rearmaments programme, and Attlee then called a second election – shades of May’s recent behaviour – in 1951, which he lost. It’s worth noting, however, that even in defeat Labour gained 48.8% of the vote, comfortably exceeding that of the Tories, but due to our FPTP system the Tories ended up with a majority of 17.
In terms of the welfare state – surely the greatest and most popular achievement of Attlee’s government – I’ve always regarded the following as one of the most concise and easily understood definitions. Sadly, under constant attack from lesser politicians of the modern age it’s almost been forgotten:
‘The creation of the welfare state…involved a willingness by the community to accept responsibility for insuring its citizens against the perils of sickness, unemployment, injury, and old age, as well as providing adequate housing and education. By comparison with earlier state systems, the post 1945 scheme was intended to offer both comprehensive benefits and ones to which the entire population would enjoy equal access; no stigma was to attach to the receipt of state benefits.’ (Pugh, M. 1994, p.240).
Thanks Ivan
A very minor point – the Allegro was launched in 1973 and British Leyland wasn’t nationalised until 1975. So that car (which was pretty terrible, I agree) was a failing of the private sector, not nationalisation. Post-nationalisation BL produced the Metro and the Maestro which weren’t amazing cars but they were certainly better, relative to the competition, than the Allegro was…
Good point!
It is a massive stretch to claim that Government investment led to the development of the ARM processor. As a company Acorn no doubt benefited from providing the official BBC Micro, but the ARM processor was a completely different product that never formed a part of the “BBC Micro”. Furthermore early development was by just two individuals and within months of starting the project Acorn went public and shortly after and went bust. Acorn was bought by Olivetti and later the ARM processor was developed in conjunction with Apple.
In real terms the ARM processor benefited no more from Government Investment than almost any other product developed by the private sector. It is always possible to identify some sort of government involvement in anything if you look back far enough along the chain.
Read Marianna Mazuccato
@Michael
“It is always possible to identify some sort of government involvement in anything if you look back far enough along the chain.”
Yes, that’s the point, nearly all the advanced technology we now enjoy had a state funding component. Real innovation is too high risk for most companies, unless they enjoy monopoly power like Bell labs formerly and Google now. Can you imagine a private company that would attempt fusion?
I just think the ARM processor is a very poor example because there are so many things that have a far more obvious relationship to government funding.
To be honest I struggle to imagine a government allowing a private company to attempt fusion.
What he was really saying was this:
“So it’s getting harder and harder to convince young people, especially, that socialism is a threat… …to my and my mates’ strangle hold on power and the wealth that brings us.”
Basically some people would rather have more relative power and wealth in a harsher and poorer world than be better off but relatively less powerful in a richer and better world.
It’s the pecking order. People who are obsessed by it prioritise policies that maintain or raise their rank in that order and they jusr don’t care about anything else. Winning is all that matters to them and it only really feels like winning if someone else loses.
I don t know when the Crosby video clip was tsken i e post or pre June election but frankly this
fellah should have stuck to the family winning way of relaxed crooning for the prospect of any success..
His slow, hesitant stuttering delivery sent me from sleepy to comatose to moribund in two minutes after which
I turned off. Plus he was speaking in – camera to a putative group of fawning accolytes who would have
hung on his every word without titter of criticism constructive or otherwise and who had no idea
of the meaning of street reaction encountered on the stump.
And I speak as a conservative! How he managed to re -elect Cameron in 2016 speaks volumes for Miliband.
If that s the best they ve got then little wonder they let Labour crucify them from a 24 percetile point start.
A Peter Capaldi he certainly ain’t !
The creation of the NHS is the headline change of that period. We would now call this socialised medicine, and it is worked remarkably well.
Capture by union interests has been avoided, doctors salaries are not excessive compared to European countries, training places are adequate, and outcomes are so good many countries have looked at copying the UK system before deciding not to.
If there was a market-based system people might buy their own equipment to measure their fluids and blood pressure etc which would be huge waste of resources , and they might exercise more and eat and drink less in order to reduce their premiums. Not what we want to happen.
Yeah, right.
So there are no overpaid doctors, or obese, drug addicted people who abuse their health, under the privatised US system?
Your sarcasm is pathetic.
Keep your privatised, profit-driven, market-led system, and let us keep our NHS; a healthcare system which enjoys the support of 80% of the UK population.
The reason other countries do not have an NHS is simply because they were unlucky enough not to have had an Aneurin Bevan.
Yes, it is a surprise that the world’s biggest economy, and with health being important to people, has highly paid doctors. A lot of doctors income in the USA goes straight back out on insurance so it’s not quite as extreme as you think.
What we need is to compare ourselves to a country that has a market-based system providing universal coverage. It’s a pity that in the eyes of the British they can’t see any examples of such systems despite being surrounded by them to the East and South.
All of which cost more than the UK, which is inevitable: someone has to pay the profit margin
The world has changed so much since 1945. Yes Labour can be proud of what it did in 1945, the problem is the solutions of 1945 aren’t relevant today.
Why not?
Don’t we need health, housing, industrial innivation, investment in housing, decent education and a social safety net any more?
Why not?
Of course they are; the principles set out in the Labour manifesto of 1945 are as fitting for today as they were then.
They were seeking to help the ordinary population recover from a World War; we’re seeking to recover from a Class War.
I agree with Richard and Mr S here.
Atlee is relevant now.
And we are in the midst of a war now: A war on paid work which was why capitalism has been so successful – every one gets something from it. But not any more.
My view is that all this technological advance and efficiency making is a product of the investor wanting more and more rent from economic activity. And the 1% and the pension funds do not seem to care what the social consequences of that are.
To the point where they are not even considering yet that if there are no or less wages in the future, people will not be able to buy their products or services or fund future pension funds.
Typical short-termism really of the ‘modern age’.
This is why we need Atlee now. To save capitalism basically.
A labour government is now faced with almost having to reenact its 1945 policies – it will have to purchase back every hospital – purchase all the London high rises, rebuild the railways, design a new school system. And build a green economy – the world has not moved on much from 1945 in several important regards the number one being that we’re still flesh and bone and no amount of pretence about VR or the digital domain will change that.
So why did we lose this socialist fervour that was seventy-two years ago? Address that question and perhaps we can get it back.
Certainly wasn’t because of too much debt. It fell as a percentage of GDP for decades afterwards.
Good question.
According to Adam Curtis, it was due to the fact that Britain and the USA decided to back Israel in the Arab war forgetting of course that the Muslim countries (who were less enthusiastic about a Jewish state being formed in their midst) supplied most of our oil that had been negotiated after WWII at low prices. It was then that the oil prices started to rise which caused inflation. Inflation was the bogeyman in the 70’s and has haunted us ever since.
It just so happens that neo-liberalism was around at that time and – hey-presto! – out went Keynes and in came con (sic) Hayek and Friedman.
Another thing that was happening was that America’s war in Vietnam was also causing economic friction as it was able to effectively push the cost of the war onto the other nations through its trade and exchange polices adding further problems to their economies.
Out of all of this came the fiction that we could not afford the NHS and a welfare system or decent wages or Unions.
And who benefits from low inflation?
Read Richard’s post today about Mark Carney to find out.
Different times, different cases…
I would not back grammar schools these days, but my mother (as the first girl from her village school to pass the 11+ in 1945) had opportunities come to her that her two elder sisters could only dream of. I rather think she wasn’t alone in that.
But we now know we can do better than that
I think in electing Atlee’s great reforming government folk demonstrated they believed a bit of Churchillian rhetoric – WW2 was ‘the people’s war” – and that, afterwards, things were not going to go on as before. I am hoping that the dreadful Grenfell Tower fire and subsequent public inquiry might provoke a similar sentiment – epitomising, as it does, what Britain has become after four decades of neo-liberalism.
If my stepbrother is anything to go by, the threat is him having to pay more tax, despite my explaining numerous times how he only got where he has by previous generations investing their taxes in his (apparent) education and general development. Even my Tory-voting dad and stepmum have lined up with me to try and explain to him why a flat tax is not fair, to no avail.
The best summary of why Labour nationalised industry is in Bevan’s book In Place of Fear,chapter 9, woith some great data. Chapter 10 is also fascinating and quite prescient.
That “socialism” was good enough to be continued by FIVE Tory PMs before Thatcher!