What happened. Where did it go wrong?

We had it in our grasp, the Socialist Republic of South Yorkshire.

At one time, the City of Sheffield bared it's teeth and was about to show the world what could be done if the people of that city were willing to stand up and fight for public services. Buses would be free, it would be safe to walk the streets at night, bricks would not come flying through your window.

This is a conurbation of over half a million folk. It is time for all of you to stand up and make your view known.

Are you willing to make this city great again. Or are so far up your own backside that you could no give a toss?

Think about it, put society before yourself.

I make no excuses. A substantial amount of the stuff I read in this forum is selfish. We would all be better off if we chose otherwise. Be political. My father (and maybe yours too) stood up and was counted when the bullets attempted to deny our democracy.

Over 80 years of patriachal Socialism has ruined Sheffield to create what it is today - a city struggling to compete in the world that most people worked out years ago.

Thank God that even New Labour has woken up to it - now all they have to do is get rid of the old socialists before the Lib-Dems take it away from them for a long time.

Originally posted by Tony
Over 80 years of patriachal Socialism has ruined Sheffield to create what it is today - a city struggling to compete in the world that most people worked out years ago.

Thank God that even New Labour has woken up to it - now all they have to do is get rid of the old socialists before the Lib-Dems take it away from them for a long time.

Tony. not sure where you get the 80 years bit from. My undestanding of socialism goes back further. I disagree with your assertation that 'patriachal Socialism has ruined Sheffield'. If it was not for their foresight, the good working folk of Sheffield would be in an even worse position.

Sheffield was a very prosporous city until the 80's. It was then that the Thatcher moneterist policies destroyed manufacturing industry. Even the bloke that sold her the idea now admits it was garbage.

By the way, god has nothing to do with it. It's people that can make a difference.

Imagine it. You could get a bus from Stannington, Wincobank, Eccleshall or wherever you fancied for FREE. This was the idea.

It would cut the number of cars on the road. Therefore the buses would move faster and be more reliable. There would be more of them. Everybody would get to their destination faster with much less hassle. This was the 1970's dream. Ruined by the 'free market' nutters.

At least the local authority at that time thought about the people not some right wing ideology.

Well here cometh a basic economics lesson :)

Nothing is 'free'. Those cheap bus rides were paid for through extortionate taxes and rates. There was a time when the high business rates for shops in Sheffield were only bettered by Oxford Street in London.

... THAT'S why Sheffield has no quality retail core. ...THAT'S why it has no business sector like Leeds, Nottingham, Manchester, all of whom had similar sized manufaturing centres that suffered the same fate as Sheffields. Other cities abandoned such policies long ago, in fact Liverpool was the only one to even entertain them - and look what a mess it made of there too.

Union power effectively killed nationalised industry, then went on to cripple private industry.

Eastern economies worked out how to do things better and faster and cheaper and further undermined UK manufacturing as a whole. That process continues today and sets new challenges with European expansion and Chinese modernisation.

Come on Supercol, climb off that student level socialism high horse and recognise that Thatcher was in power at a time when the changes were happening world-wide. Union power was killing the world economy and new challenges HAD to be met. The same things happened in the UK, the USA, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, etc, etc. Thatcher didn't create the devastated world economy all by herself, she reacted to it on the only ways possible.

... THAT'S why the UK is richer. cleaner, healthier, more educated and yes... more equal, than it has ever been in it's history.

Please recognise too that even David Blunkett, Clive Betts, and nationally / internationally Neil Kinnock saw that the old ways of Labour had to end.

The only people who believe in patriachal socialism (aka mild but effective communism) are a few Old Labourites and Arthur Scargill (who almost single handedly killed the industry he claimed to protect).

Things move on, and free bus rides for the 'Twearlies' are thankfully a thing of the past. :thumbsup:

Originally posted by Tony

... THAT'S why the UK is richer. cleaner, healthier, more educated and yes... more equal, than it has ever been in it's history.


Richer, yes. Cleaner, yes (no heavy industry and Mrs T wielded the knife with a greater zeal than the economics dictated), more educated?? not sure.
More equal? a definate NO! In terms of health, income, life expectancy the gap continues to widen between richest and poorest
It's not a North/South divide but one between different income groups.

I'm afraid that we certainly are all more equal, both legally and financially.

Poverty is almost non-existant in this country, as it is seemingly measured by the number of TV sets and holidays that people have.

No doubt a kind Forum member will be able to furnish us with the actual figure that determines poverty, but isn't it something like £15,000 pa household income?

Think back 20 years.

Isn't Sheffield still at war with Tierra del Fuego, or somewhere like that, because of the Socialists?

Dunno about that but Berwick-Upon-Tweed was at war with Russia for a very long time

You can't go back. You can only go forward and of course that includes change but your dreams and commitment can remain the same.

Originally posted by Tony

No doubt a kind Forum member will be able to furnish us with the actual figure that determines poverty, but isn't it something like £15,000 pa household income?


Last I heard the definition of "poverty" in the UK is a household with an income of less than 60% of the (median) average. This was a bit under £6000 However I know a couple of years ago it was suggested that the definition change. I'm not aware that it ever did. See http://www.poverty.org.uk/summary/key_facts.htm for a summary of stats.

"In 2001/02, before deducting housing costs, this equated to £187 per week for a couple with no children, £114 for a single person, £273 for a couple with two children and £200 for a lone parent with two children."

Comprehensive report "Monitoring poverty and social exclusion 2003" at http://www.npi.org.uk/reports/mpse%202003.pdf

"It may also be that Britain is beginning to move clear of the group of – largely south European – countries in the European Union (EU) with the worst poverty records. This judgement is more tentative because the latest published figures from the EU are for 1999, which show the UK still near the bottom, better only than Greece and Portugal and bracketed with Spain, Italy and Ireland [2B]. But if the rates in these countries have not changed since then, the reduction in poverty seen in Britain since 1999 would mean that it was moving clear of this group by 2001/02, in the direction of the poverty rate recorded in France."

Originally posted by Tony
Nothing is 'free'. Those cheap bus rides were paid for through extortionate taxes and rates.

Sorry, you're right. It was not free. What I should have said was ' free at the point of use', rather like the NHS (should be).

However I cannot agree with the (then) taxation rates being described as extortionate. Most economists would agree that the overall basket of taxation (direct and indirect) has not changed markedly over the last 40 years. I checked this with 5 economists who work for 3 major banks (old pals).

Transport plays a big part in most of our lives. You just have to look at the many strident posts on some of the threads. The concept of free (at the point of use) public transport is not that mad. Everybody walks out of their front door and uses transport infrastructure (the pavement) without being expected to buy a ticket. The cost of it's provision and upkeep is met by the public purse (free at the point of use). The extension of this concept makes sense when you see the daily gridlock on many of our roads. People will only get out their cars either at gunpoint or if the economic case is severely tilted against it.

Before you ask. I drive a Rover 820. However I only use it when there is no other option. Free (at the point of use) public transport would fuel an improvement in bus, tram and train services whilst providing a valuable cut in fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas production.

Knock that down if you will.

You and your banking buddies are not taking into account one very important factor - that we are talking about LOCAL taxes and rates that paid for those cheap bus rides. National taxation has nothing to do with that.

South Yorkshire had mad levels of rates that paid for socialist ideology. Thankfully that is now gone.

Originally posted by Tony
You and your banking buddies are not taking into account one very important factor - that we are talking about LOCAL taxes and rates that paid for those cheap bus rides. National taxation has nothing to do with that.

Hi Tony

I was including local taxation in the argument. Taking inflation into account, most folk pay more now than they did in 70's in local taxation. Admitted that the structure is a bit different now ( rates v. council tax). Only the very rich come out of this smiling. Can this be right?

The problem is that we could discuss this all night but not get any agreement without the hard evidence. I can't get my hands on the actual council documents that would my point or yours beyond doubt. Can you? I have to make do with papers written by economists, after the fact. If not let's agree to differ and just argue political doctrine.

I think you are being far too kind regarding Thatcher's treatment of the local industry devistation. Here in Newcastle, Australia the huge steelworks privately owned by BHP closed in 1999. A conserted effort was made by both the state government and the private company to find work for the employees made redundant. They were given advice on how to invest their redundancy, the best industries to retrain into and active assistance to find work.

Effort has been made to attract new industry into the city and Newcastle is now being pushed as a clean city with an alternative lifestyle to the metropolitan rush of Sydney, which is about 100 miles south. As I remember, the steelworks and the mines simply closed. The land stood vacant for years waiting for someone to come along with the imagination to do something with it and in desperation the Student Games were adopted as a frail lifeline. Once again, with no government support, they were a financial desaster and universities around the world use it as an example of how not to run a major sporting event. While the Tories cannot be blamed for absolutely everything, their apathetic attitude towards an area where they were smug in their efforts to level major industry without actively providing any replacement cannot be forgotten.

As far as I remember, the Socialist Republic of South Yorkshire was a Tory-generated phrase and was adopted by many in the area to sum up the feeling of alienation and abandonment as we were labelled 'the enemy within'.

I was 12 when the steelworks closed and 16 when the miners went on strike. We were taught at school that we had a future as either a miner or a steelworker. We were taught about the carbon content of different types of coal and of the history of steel production and when I left school both industries were either dead or in their knees. So I had no qualms about leaving Sheffield or England to find a life.

Originally posted by woodhouselad

As far as I remember, the Socialist Republic of South Yorkshire was a Tory-generated phrase and was adopted by many in the area to sum up the feeling of alienation and abandonment as we were labelled 'the enemy within'.


Whoever generated the phrase is not pertinant (crap grammar, I know , it doesn't matter). Many of us took it as a badge of honour. David Blunkett will know what I'm talking about.

The important point was that an attempt was made to change society, not a bolshevism revolution sense, but a real try at making things better for the ordinary bloke (and his missus) who produced the goods for the country. Is that not patriotic or what!!

In the end, it is all about about respecting each other.

Oh, by the way, I'm only back for a while. You know what I mean!!

Originally posted by superCol
Many of us took it as a badge of honour. David Blunkett will know what I'm talking about.

Oooo the irony! :D

Originally posted by Tony
Oooo the irony! :D

Tony. What's ironic about trying to make things better for your fellow man and woman?

I don't think that's ironic at all SuperCol

I do think David Blunkett and socialism is ironic!

Originally posted by Tony
I don't think that's ironic at all SuperCol

I do think David Blunkett and socialism is ironic!

Why?

because he represents the opposite of it. New Labour.

It sounds like a pipe dream to me, that was built on false ideals and doomed to failure.
Convince me otherwise with sound economics and not rehtoric and I'll change sides.

I agree with you there cyclone.

Thankfully, despite wrecking Sheffield some years ago, (we're still not yet over it) David Blunkett had an epiphany somewhere along the way and I think makes rather a good Home Secretary.

Way to go Tony!

Hi Tony

I was including local taxation in the argument. Taking inflation into account, most folk pay more now than they did in 70's in local taxation. Admitted that the structure is a bit different now ( rates v. council tax). Only the very rich come out of this smiling. Can this be right?

The problem is that we could discuss this all night but not get any agreement without the hard evidence. I can't get my hands on the actual council documents that would my point or yours beyond doubt. Can you? I have to make do with papers written by economists, after the fact. If not let's agree to differ and just argue political doctrine.

There is right and wrong on both sides
But the thing about high local taxes was a fiction generated by goverment

At that time the RV of houses in south yorkshire were half those of anywhere else. therefore the total paid in actual tax would be the same even if on paper it looked double.
How do I know due to the elemination of the coal and steel industry I tried my luck down south in Kent.

Terraced house in kent RV = £300 @ £1.50 in the pound = rate £450.00
Semi detachedhouse in south yorkshire RV = £150 @ £3.00 in the pound = rate £450
Circa 1985

note the reduction in standard from semi detached to terrance

Remeber you can make figures say anything

the buses were not free but had low fares yes and it worked we had the newest buses clean well maintained frequent and on time.

remember that when polical parties talk about finance and economics it is always from the side that suits them.