Gordon Brown Writes To The Isle Of Man . . .

[Albert Tatlock]

What Messrs Darling and Brown are planning is worse than anything Maggie threw at the public services - the cuts will be brutal...

After what has happened, these cuts are now inevitable under a Labour, Tory or even hung parliament based government. The UK will not be a good place to live over at least the next 5 years for many IMO. There is definitely trouble in store over there.

 

However, it shouldn't be forgotten though that this tax on high earners doesn't just hit bankers (though I'm sure most of us don't mind that it includes many bankers) but it also hits entrepeneurs at a time when the UK needs them to be building businesses, creating jobs and wealth etc.

 

Targetting some of those entrepenuers would do this island much good at the moment, not just in bringing money here in terms of the finance sector, but also in terms of bringing new and developing industry over here so that the island's economy becomes much further diversified - at least 20% of what it is now. Now is also the time to invest in the infrastructure that is needed to achieve this e.g. business/science park as well as an immigration policy linked to targetting the necessary skillset required to further diversify.

 

Let them have their class war and play blamestorming - let us cherry pick what we need by offering the advantages to entrepeneurs that we can offer - all whilst geographically close to the UK. A failure to do this now runs the risk of placing us in a similar position to the UK in a few short years.

[Chinahand]

When you are prime minister you have to make decisions for the whole country not segements of it which are unsustainable, rely on subsidies, and have brought the entire country to its knees in the past in order to demand increased subsidies.

But surely as Prime Minister you have a moral duty to care for the welfare of ALL of your citizens and not just those who vote for you?

Oh come on P.K. - you talking about welfare. You aren't caring for the welfare of anyone throwing government money down a black hole. Something I think Brown still hasn't got as he insists banks keep to 2007 lending policies and subsidies them to do it.

 

Social services, retraining, development grants, regional grants, applications to the EU for funds etc etc. These were a part of the process of getting the devasteted areas back on their feet. The economic purpose of the nationalized industries had gone - you can't just keep paying out cash to keep miners, steel makers, and makers of the Leyland Princess employed. You can't just wish jobs into being - you have to have productive industries and that comes about from organic growth and not from government fiat.

[P.K.]

Well Chinahand I agree with you to a point. The miners are an interesting example. Is it better to subsidise their industry or put them out of work? If you subsidise them then their communities, where in places like South Wales mining is the only employment, remain viable. If you let them fail then you still have to keep them via the dole etc etc. Which is the better option? From a moral point of view the answer is obvious, from a Thatcherite point of view revenge is everything.

 

I have NEVER based a decision on anecdotal evidence, the bottom line rules. But in this case the bottom line has never really been looked at. The conclusion I'm forced to is that it was never looked at because it wasn't relevant. However Thatcher has often been accused of squandering North Sea oil revenues on the unemployed she created for the sake of political dogma. I'm inclined to agree with that prognosis.

 

If an industry ceases to be viable, which can happen for all sorts of reasons, then the Gov of the day has a responsibility to help as much as it can. Retraining, investment in new technologies, encouraging new business and so on. Thatcher et al completely ignored the devastation they had deliberately caused. I hope she rots in hell...

[Gladys]

I have to agree with PK, the motivation behind the decimation of the coal industry was not so much economic as eradicating an area of labour control. Whilst doing that, much reliance was placed on the free market economy; market forces were expected to operate to shape the UK economy and was the 'sink or swim' theory. That laid the bedrock for what we have now. True, Labour refined and honed it by relaxing regulation of the financial institutions by encouranging a 'light touch' by the FSA, but it was the Thatecherite Darwinian approach to economic policy that has left us where we are now - it propagated survival of the fittest, not necessarily the best.

[Evil Goblin]

PK and Gladys - you are still dodging the question, which seems to indicate that you don't have an answer. Until you do, all you are doing is whinging and talking about a theoretical ideal world. Of course it would be best if dying industries could be identified well ahead of time and necessary remedial action taken. The problem was that succesive Governments (Tory and Labour) ignored "the writing on the wall" and things ended up in such a state that it was either "sink or swim" or "sink". As an example, the nationalised British Steel was forced to employ some 210,000 people for years when only about 70,000 were actually needed (which explains why that outfits' losses were so horrendous - they were concealed welfare costs), all to conceal the true level of "surplus labour". Sorry, but running away from reality doesn't change the hard facts.

[Albert Tatlock]

Either, either or...it's all gone horribly wrong in the UK. Over-reliance on the finance sector, globalisation and the mass movement of tangible work abroad, outsourcing, off-shoring etc. etc. - all along with mass immigration. It's a recipe for social upheaval and trouble IMO.

 

The UK model is clearly unworkable. On our island, I think we should be learning lots from that at present - especially as our model is a lot more simple, a lot more self-contained, and buffered (only by a period of time) from the vagaries of the UK/RoW. That buffer gives us some time to adjust, to adapt and diversify - and if we don't use that present luxury wisely, we will find ourselves in a similar position to the UK in a couple of years IMO. The difference is that the island could realistically go bust over a short period of time if it continues with the current level of govt expenditure (employment/pensions/health) and doesn't take action - NOW.

[Gladys]

Not dodging the question, as it is not a question worth asking because you cannot change history, or reality as you put it. I don't think anyone ever suggested that ailing industries should be supported for ever more, but there was more than one way of skinning that particular cat. You also have to consider whether the objective was just to close down unviable businesses or whether it was to break the stranglehold the unions had, which they undoubtedly and wrongly had.

 

Is there anything so terribly wrong with subsidizing primary industries? As you say, they were only hiding welfare costs and at least there were communities around them with a sense of worth. Of course, they should be run efficiently and without the undue union influence, but that demands strong management.

 

To an extent, subsidization is exactly what is being done with the banking sector at the moment because no-one wants that sector to disappear.

[Evil Goblin]

It is very clear that you are indeed dodging the question and it certainly is worth asking. If you are going to slag Thatcher off for her policies then you should be prepared to explain what should have been done instead - as it is neither PK or yourself have done anything but whinge. You clearly do not have any sensible alternative.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Well, LDV, we are in no doubt (if anyone ever was) which side of the Left/Right divide you belong on! So, the State must be responsible for everything, people must always be rescued from the consequences of their behaviour? As Scrooge said, "I'll retire to Bedlam"!

 

No, the State should not be responsible for ANYTHING. I think the state should be abolished. However, if the government in having control over industries decides end the jobs of people then they are responsible for the consequences.

 

Is there anything so terribly wrong with subsidizing primary industries? As you say, they were only hiding welfare costs and at least there were communities around them with a sense of worth. Of course, they should be run efficiently and without the undue union influence, but that demands strong management.

 

To an extent, subsidization is exactly what is being done with the banking sector at the moment because no-one wants that sector to disappear.

 

I suppose it depends on whether you believe that economic growth is desirable.

 

In the case of the mine closures it was a shame the unions did not have more influence and power.

[Evil Goblin]

Well, LDV, we are in no doubt (if anyone ever was) which side of the Left/Right divide you belong on! So, the State must be responsible for everything, people must always be rescued from the consequences of their behaviour? As Scrooge said, "I'll retire to Bedlam"!

 

No, the State should not be responsible for ANYTHING. I think the state should be abolished. However, if the government in having control over industries decides end the jobs of people then they are responsible for the consequences.

 

Is there anything so terribly wrong with subsidizing primary industries? As you say, they were only hiding welfare costs and at least there were communities around them with a sense of worth. Of course, they should be run efficiently and without the undue union influence, but that demands strong management.

 

To an extent, subsidization is exactly what is being done with the banking sector at the moment because no-one wants that sector to disappear.

 

I suppose it depends on whether you believe that economic growth is desirable.

 

In the case of the mine closures it was a shame the unions did not have more influence and power.

LDV-are you a Trotskyist? Certainly seems that way.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

LDV-are you a Trotskyist? Certainly seems that way.

 

I am not a communist, why?

[pongo]

mass immigration

 

.... is not the issue.

 

The UK may be facing a problem with over - population. But immigration is not the cause.

 

Immigrants are, almost invariably, a positive economic influence.

 

There may be a problem with poorly educated people having too many children. And especially people who will not typically leave their communities and travel to find work. Immigrants, by contrast, have often already shown that they are willing to search for work.

 

There is a myth that people having more children will solve some future pensions crisis. The downside of that bad argument is that, if followed through, every generation would need more and more people to pay the pensions etc.

[Gladys]

It is very clear that you are indeed dodging the question and it certainly is worth asking. If you are going to slag Thatcher off for her policies then you should be prepared to explain what should have been done instead - as it is neither PK or yourself have done anything but whinge. You clearly do not have any sensible alternative.

The alternative was there. Strengthen the management to control the unions and rationalise the industry, not in a Thatcherite way, but in making the pits more efficient, not just closure. The closures were based more on ideology than counting the whole cost of closing down the sole employer in many communities. I am not having a whinge, just have an entirely different view to you.

[P.K.]

It is very clear that you are indeed dodging the question and it certainly is worth asking. If you are going to slag Thatcher off for her policies then you should be prepared to explain what should have been done instead - as it is neither PK or yourself have done anything but whinge. You clearly do not have any sensible alternative.

It's very clear that history has condemned Thatcher for her treatment of the mining communities. That's got nothing whatever to do with Trade Union influence, it's just got everything to do with the miners.

 

So explain knobhead Evil Goblin, Heath put the issue to the electorate and they voted him out. So how do you explain the electorate siding with the miners in a democratic way?

 

Dick.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

The alternative was there. Strengthen the management to control the unions and rationalise the industry, not in a Thatcherite way, but in making the pits more efficient, not just closure. The closures were based more on ideology than counting the whole cost of closing down the sole employer in many communities. I am not having a whinge, just have an entirely different view to you.

 

How would they have been made less inefficient? Just curious.