From: martinb@bottomdog.uk.sun.com (Martin Baines - Sun UK - SE Manager Cambridge/Gatwick)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: MAJOR WINS MAJORITY!!!
Date: 10 Apr 92 17:18:11 GMT
Reply-To: martinb@bottomdog.uk.sun.com
Organization: Sun Microsystems
NNTP-Posting-Host: bottomdog.uk.sun.com

In article 2121@bristol.ac.uk, smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee) writes:
>In article <1992Apr10.052826.28630@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca> jswilson@mta.ca writes:
>>I never doubted for a second that John Major would not win.  He (or rather) and
>>the Conservatives are the best bet to pull Britain out of the recession.
>
>I don't understand why people believe this.  It was this government
>(and particularly the Lawson budget of a few years ago) that put us
>into it.  In the past 13 years, Britain has been falling further and
>further behind in the EEC 'league tables' of economic performance.  (I
>think only Portugal and Greece are worse, at this point -- that's
>nearly right anyway, may have missed someone.)

Not this old piece of false information: the recently published
OECD table of GDP (National Income) for the world's countries, showed
that Britains decline in GDP per head relative to other European
countries halted in the mid '80s ('84 or 85' depending exactly
how you calculate your GDP/head figures). Since the Britain has
been improving steadily. Since '85, Britain has had the *highest*
rate of improvement of GDP/head in the EC. For the record,
Britain now stands at number 4 in GDP/head in the EC: Greece and
Portugal are 12 and 11 respectively. At current rates of economic
activity, the UK should overtake Italy again for the number 3 slot
in about 3 years.

>Look at their election platforms.  1979 -- 1 million unemployed under
>Labour, that's horrible; now, we've got 2.6 million unemployed, and
>they say it may get worse before it gets better.  

As I made a point in a previous posting, the employment figures
pre '79 relected a hugh amount of dead wood due to overmanning,
paid for by the state out of borrowing.

Today things are very different: the employment levels reflect
true levels of economic activity, so as the economy improves
so does employement.

>1979 -- '7 million
>mandays lost due to strikes last year'.  True.  As Simon Hoggart
>pointed out, that works out to about 3 hours per worker per year, or
>about 50 seconds per person per day.  Hardly significant, and anyhow
>with 2.6 million out of work, we're losing about 13 million 'man'days
>per WEEK right now.

I strongly disagree: strikes are just part of the symptom of
bad labour relations. 7 million man-days lost is bad in its
own right: especially as it was not evenly spread: if 200 workers
go on strike, it can stop several thousand others working
(just consider what happens if the delivery drivers go on strike,
or if the power workers go on strike). Also, the culture back
them was such that many unions used just the threat of industrial
action to achieve unreasonable demands.

>Inflation isn't noticeably better.  

Depends what you notice! The last Labour government was proud
when it got the inflation figures down to a one month freak
low figure of 8%, for much of the time it was running in the
high teens or twenties. Nowdays we would consider 8% unacceptably
high, and worry if it rises above 5%.

>Businesses are going bankrupt at a
>record rate.  Home repossessions are at a record rate.

Are they really a record? If so what are the figures? I am
not saying you are wrong, I am just interested to hear the
actual figures, rather than retoric (sp?)?

>Interest rates
>are high and 'may have to go up again'.  

And may go down again as well. Even John Smith when pressed
admitted he may have to put up interest rates if the pound
came under further pressure. It's part of the disipline
of being in the ERM. (Whether you agree with the ERM is
a different matter [I do]).

>Taxes are well higher than
>before they took office, though because of shuffles from income tax to
>VAT and things, the top 10% of wage-earners are indeed paying very much
>lower taxes.  (Income tax HAS gone down, but VAT has more than
>doubled.)

The level of tax per head has indeed risen slightly, however the
government is now running with one of the lowest national debts
in the EC. One of the first things the Tory government had to do
in the '80s was start to pay off the hugh debts the previous
Labour had run up (remember when the UK had to go cap in hand
to the IMF to be bailed out?). Personally, I feel the current
PSBR is too high, and would like to see public spending cut,
but the PSBR as a percentage of GDP is still one of the lowest
in Europe.

As for income tax verses VAT it's all a matter of taste: as long
as VAT is not on essential goods I don't see that it matters
much. But then I happen not to be one of those who believes in
taxing the rich at a higher rate just out of envy.

>Ah, but the Tories are good on crime, they say.  Well, 'for', rather
>than 'on', maybe.  Crime rates are not only at a record high, but the
>rate of INCREASE of the crime rate is at a record high.  

It's been increasing continually since the war in all western countries,
Britain is not much beter or worse than the others in relative
terms.

>Homelessness and begging are way up.  (When I came over 12 years ago,
>my normal travels around the city involved passing ONE homeless beggar.
>Now, you can't walk half a block in Bristol without seeing one.)

I suspect you wouldn't like my solution to begging, so I don't
think I'll go into too greater detail: suffice to say it involves
giving them a free market incentive to actively contribute
to the country's economic activity....

>Well, you say, the Tories are 'strong on defense'.  Except they even
>pissed off the military last year, with some strong cuts.  (Mind, I don't
>object to the cuts -- might be the only thing they've done that I agree
>with -- but to then present military cuts as something nasty that only
>the other guys would do is a bit much.)

Just wait until *real* free market forces are brought to the
armed forces. How about putting them out to tender? Maybe we could
subcontract the job to the lowest bidder: I hear we could get
good rates from the former Red Army.

>>Good luck for the next 5 years!
>
>Thanks, we'll need it.

But not as much as if Labour had won!

---
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You might say that, but I couldn't possibly comment"

Martin Baines, Sales Support Manager,
Sun Microsystems Ltd, 306 Science Park, Cambridge, CB4 4WG, UK
Phone: +44 223 420421                 Fax: +44 223 420257
JANET:     Martin.Baines@uk.co.sun    Other UK:  Martin.Baines@sun.co.uk
Internet:  Martin.Baines@UK.sun.com
X.400:     g=martin s=baines prmd=sunir admd=mci c=us
From: crd@otter.hpl.hp.com (Chris Dalton)
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 13:13:45 GMT
Subject: Re: Sponge bag
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Bristol, UK.