To think the UK is in terminal decline

I expect you’re right: nothing’s new 😄 agree though, he was great.

You make a good point. In my experience, the best example is the hospitality industry where (generally) people working in it are treated appallingly and it seems as though it's largely considered a temporary job while looking for something else. By contrast, many European countries have careers in hospitality which, again in my experience, results in far better service and contribution to community life generally. I think it has something to do with the way we see the whole business of eating and drinking, viewing it as a "pit stop" to refuel rather than a place to enjoy company as well as refreshment.

You're right that John Laurie kept saying it in Dad's Army but I have a sneaking suspicion it was Stanley Baxter who had it as one of his lines in a black & white film before. Either way, "we're all doomed"! 😉

Was it Stanley Baxter?

Thought it was John Laurie? (Private Fraser)

Sorry, Going off on a tangent … 😁 (and showing my age).

I heard an interesting lady on Woman's Hour talking about feminist economics the other day - Emma Holten I think (book called Deficit). It's a really obvious think but the economic models are based on the idea that low paid jobs are effectively worthless and therefore most women are a net deficit to society. This is really where we have been going wrong as we don't value what actually makes a community and society a good place to live.

You can see men being paid 10x what nurses do for a job in sales. Best I saw was a man getting paid £300ph to do basic mastik jobs FFS. These jobs do not contribute to society at all but are rewarded excessively. No-brainer why everyone is so unhappy and frazzled.

In the words of the late, great, Stanley Baxter "We're all doomed" 😉

I do think the civil service does have efficiencies it can make - from knowing people who work there.

That said, I largely agree with your conclusion. Things feel very bleak and there doesn't seem to be anyone capable of sorting it out. It's quite depressing. Due to another political shit show (Brexit) I can't even move back to my home country because my husband wouldn't be able to come with me.

Really? We need people who'll do care work , who work behind tills, man receptions in hospitals, pick fruit on farms, drive buses, work in Maccys. I think you're incorrect to think these jobs are easy to fill with "locals". These types of immigrants will stay and make a future. Their kids will ho onto to be your "educated immigrants" if you don't scare them away.

For goodness sakes, do you really think that we're just going to get highly qualified drs who have to put up with frankly awful attitudes of the population post Brexit and they'll just stay here? They won't. I remember my banker friends saying London, you get in and make as much as you can and get out, you don't want to stay here. This is what people think of the UK.

It's funny how so many articles say the whole world population is actually in radical decline and under threat, due to low birth rates across the world, but this mythical 'overpopulation' myth continues to prevail.

I guess we must accept ourselves as a deserving sacrifice to the inevitable decline of humanity as punishment for being born.

Stop listening to David Attenborough!

Find a way to be more selective? Well just ask for their qualifications and work experience -I mean if I apply to be a bank manager they won’t just give me the job I need evidence of knowledge and skills, cv etc if they come from abroad do a verbal test of English and check their certificates

We need the "right" kind of immigration, i.e. young professionals. What we don't need are lots more unskilled people (we already have enough) who are more likely to be a drain on resources if unemployed, working in the black economy, etc. We need to find a way to being more selective.

Awful generalisation.

But nationalised companies were pretty poor - look at the doctors striking now and the civil service all working from home - that’s your nationalised industries.
edit and the young get old - to be much use they need good qualifications so that puts them late 30s ,40 not so long til they’re demanding their state pension

The asset selling off in Thatcher 's era was very harmful. We're paying for it now.

If anything we need more young people in the UK. Not less. We have an increasing older population in the UK. Stopping immigration isn't going to help.

House prices have gone up globally - I’m not sure what the reason is -Sydney,NY - partly rich foreigners buying property, and I would think millennials had as much to do with Chinese businesses becoming rich as boomers, and thereby having the money to buy London property. But the population has gone up hugely since the late 90s -I would say that started in Blair’s time so can’t be blamed on Thatcher -must increase demand and prices

Hi ,
The sell off led to tax reductions (rather than a boost to infrastructure) and although this disproportionately helped the better off , lower and middle incomes were affected. Income per person rose significantly in the 80s.

Although attitudes to spending may have changed, the gap between wages and house prices is so much more. The fact that you could save money to pay down your mortgage/save a deposit by tightening your belt actually belies the privilege of this generation.

Thanks for the reply and I understand the points you make although those that choose to invest in the privatisations were taking quite a risk; there was no certainty at all. To an extent buying stocks and shares is still available but continues to carry risk - not the volatility as a consequence of the Trump administration. Who wouldn't vote for a party saying it will reduce income tax - that's not so different to today is it? I agree about house inflation but to be fair, it has always been up, certainly since 1975, but only a couple of significant peaks as far as I can tell. Even then, there are plenty of people in my generation who ended up in negative equity. On the other hand, mostly it was those who were being slightly speculative in the heady days of Buy to Let. I guess house inflation only ever benefits house owners but even then the house one hopes to buy has also an inflated price as has the house one is selling. Isn't the key here that, hopefully, one is progressing and, again hopefully, has more income to commit to a mortgage although I accept that's not universal.
Anyhow, thanks for you comments, very helpful and made me rethink my own comments.

Most of the privatisations/demutualisations were offered to the general public, who eagerly voted for/bought shares and then virtually immediately sold them, usually at a decent profit, to institutional investors. We had all kinds of TV and media marketing such as "Don't tell Sid" for British Gas privatisation.

We had unprecedented house price inflation over that period, which obviously only benefitted home owners, not renters.

We had unprecedented increases in the stock market, fuelling massive endowment mortgage gains.

We also had income tax reductions over that period.

Certain voting demographical groups continued to vote for political parties who promised to continue reducing income tax, continue privatisations, etc. You have to remember that a majority of voters voted for Maggie and her election manifestos - if people didn't want her policies, they wouldn't have voted for her!

I'm not sure you're right on this. It seems to me your point is suggesting that the public benefitted from the Thatcher Govt selling-off public assets. I don't recall that at all but I would agree that it was a very poor strategic decision to do so. In my experience, other things were significantly different. For example, not buying (a luxury) something until you could afford it and little use of credit cards to name a couple.

I don’t really get the moaning about wealth distribution - there are lots of private estates round here made their money in the 1800s legitimately or not. Must be worth millions if not billions.

To an extent I get your narrative, particularly regarding the exceptional wealth distribution (comparitively). But I think that period has ended and, by contrast, we appear to be in a period where an increasing number of people want "something for nothing", in part because the State enables that (to a degree at least). There does seem to be an increasing reluctance to work unless it's large reward for little work and the population generally enables that, with an increasing number of "influencers" (for example) and other "non-jobs". Looking at the decreasing productivity in UK I tend to think we are in terminal decline unless there is significant change somewhere, perhaps politicians with genuine leadership (wouldn't that be good?) who don't promise the earth.

I doubt there were benefits paid in the medieval time. If everyone who could work was working how different things would be.
edit - also the rich needed armies to protect their land and riches so a fit, fed countryman was required with the money to pay them and to pay mercenaries

The thing that most people don't seem to 'get' is that the last 100 years has been exceptional in terms of wealth distribution.

1918 (WW1) - We ended up with a bunch of men, trained and ready to fight, who really weren't going to take no for an answer. Revolution in Russia and various other movements throughout Europe forced the issue. Something had to change for the ordinary working person.

1945 (WW2) - Another bunch of men, trained and ready to fight, who really weren't going to take no for an answer. It's actually Churchill who says 'From the cradle to the grave', and still he got voted out and replaced by, arguably, the first socialist government this country had ever seen. The ordinary working person was going to hold the politicians to account. Basically, still stuck on the slogan of those commie Ruskies: Bread, Peace and Land. We need to be fed, safe and have somewhere to live.

The 1960s and 70s were turbulent. Wilson (PM) wasn't lying when he talked about 'The white heat of technology'. Things began to shift. Different things to today, but broadly speaking it was a similar kind of industrial revolution - instead of AI think of automation in factories. Cracks started to show. The promises were beginning to be broken. And now we didn't have millions of men trained and ready to fight. The government could get away with it.

1979 through to the 80s - Thatcher tells us that 'There is no alternative' (TINA). Remember UB40's 1 in 10 and when interest rates were at 12%? But she offered something else, the old dream that 'An Englishman's home is his castle'. You can all be lords of the manor. A nice, little noble in your own right. And the idiots fell for it. So here we are, back in a kind of feudal system.

It's the feudal system that coins the phrase 'feckless poor'. Also, it's the feudal system that deliberately suppresses wages after a pandemic (Black Death 1348, Statute of Labourers 1351). Once again, it's the feudal system that introduces the idea of the unwanted foreigner. And who introduces the feudal system? William the Conqueror. Why? So the rich can get richer and the poor can get more subservient.

I don't think we're in terminal decline. I think we're heading towards another medieval period.

I agree. Either is definitely possible while the current turmoil continues, which it will.

WhatIsCorndogs · Today 14:07
The thing that worries me is that during times of economic decline, global instability, people generally being poor and unhappy, this is when the authoritarian right wing governments swoop in and promise to fix everything…..

I agree, that is a possibility, but if people get really fed up by the gap between rich and poor then there’s the possibility of revolution and a far left government being installed.

Obviously, neither is desirable.