|
Post by Toreador on Dec 13, 2022 17:51:17 GMT
Ours just sold out or merged. The other reason is that Germany spent its Marshall Aid money wisely, your favourite post-war haven't a clue government squandered it on the wrong things.That is one of the great historical what-ifs. Had we rebuilt the economy like Germany rather than Nationalising everything in sight and creating a cradle to grave welfare state, would we be as economically successful?. Personally, given the calibre of post war governments and the power given to the unions I doubt it. It weas the calibre of government that caused the problems by misusing Marshall Aid money. Had they got together with the unions, agreed a way forward by investing in industry that would give workers a share of the created wealth, job done. But they didn't and they haven't, successive governments have never followed a policy of befriending the workforce; ever confrontation.
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 13, 2022 21:58:19 GMT
That is one of the great historical what-ifs. Had we rebuilt the economy like Germany rather than Nationalising everything in sight and creating a cradle to grave welfare state, would we be as economically successful?. Personally, given the calibre of post war governments and the power given to the unions I doubt it. It weas the calibre of government that caused the problems by misusing Marshall Aid money. Had they got together with the unions, agreed a way forward by investing in industry that would give workers a share of the created wealth, job done. But they didn't and they haven't, successive governments have never followed a policy of befriending the workforce; ever confrontation. I think the Labour government behaved like a Tory one as regards workers by keeping servicemen on, especially RAF, to service private aircraft abroad, and not allowing the Bevin boys to be released until 1948, largely becasue they kept experienced miners in the services. Once they could conscript they were very reluctant to allow a return to normal and as regards National Service that did not end until 1963 yet there was a shortage of skilled labour as we hear all too often The UK is often blamed for retreating from Empire too fast but that is exactly what those who wanted to say goodbye to us expressly wished and it is what we should have done to see to our own house and bring the skills home to wives and families.
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Dec 13, 2022 22:24:09 GMT
It weas the calibre of government that caused the problems by misusing Marshall Aid money. Had they got together with the unions, agreed a way forward by investing in industry that would give workers a share of the created wealth, job done. But they didn't and they haven't, successive governments have never followed a policy of befriending the workforce; ever confrontation. I think the Labour government behaved like a Tory one as regards workers by keeping servicemen on, especially RAF, to service private aircraft abroad, and not allowing the Bevin boys to be released until 1948, largely becasue they kept experienced miners in the services. Once they could conscript they were very reluctant to allow a return to normal and as regards National Service that did not end until 1963 yet there was a shortage of skilled labour as we hear all too often The UK is often blamed for retreating from Empire too fast but that is exactly what those who wanted to say goodbye to us expressly wished and it is what we should have done to see to our own house and bring the skills home to wives and families. I don't disagree regarding the Empire but the question is would they have wanted to leave had they been treated differently, had they been treated as equals and not as subordinate. I lived through most of the turmoil and saw enough of the turmoil that broke up the empire. Strangely, I think thgere's a good deal of the empire, particularly thirld world, who might think they went from the frying pan into the fire. Yes skilled labour was short but in some cases, like construction, they couldn't wait to demob them, and even then their housing program fell well short of promises. The sad thing was that in addition to keeping pewople in the services thay continued with widespread conscription, depleting the poptential workforce still more. What happened in that immediate post-war period still affects this country.
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 13, 2022 22:41:41 GMT
I think the Labour government behaved like a Tory one as regards workers by keeping servicemen on, especially RAF, to service private aircraft abroad, and not allowing the Bevin boys to be released until 1948, largely becasue they kept experienced miners in the services. Once they could conscript they were very reluctant to allow a return to normal and as regards National Service that did not end until 1963 yet there was a shortage of skilled labour as we hear all too often The UK is often blamed for retreating from Empire too fast but that is exactly what those who wanted to say goodbye to us expressly wished and it is what we should have done to see to our own house and bring the skills home to wives and families. I don't disagree regarding the Empire but the question is would they have wanted to leave had they been treated differently, had they been treated as equals and not as subordinate. I lived through most of the turmoil and saw enough of the turmoil that broke up the empire. Strangely, I think thgere's a good deal of the empire, particularly thirld world, who might think they went from the frying pan into the fire. Yes skilled labour was short but in some cases, like construction, they couldn't wait to demob them, and even then their housing program fell well short of promises. The sad thing was that in addition to keeping pewople in the services thay continued with widespread conscription, depleting the poptential workforce still more. What happened in that immediate post-war period still affects this country. You may be correct as regards treating people as equals but realistically we cannot redefine how we behaved in Empire with all its good and bad points. In the Palestine Mandate we tried our hardest to be even handed but were up against those who hated each other with each regarding the British as being sympathetic to the other. Report after report was made with recommendations that resulted in more intransigence. So it is not just a British problem as regards treating as equals hence Idi Amin telling Asians to leave, Smith in Rhodesia taking power, British police sent to the Bahamas and a host of other little things. At least we provided resettlement of Tristan De Cunha residents until the could go home some years later. The Empire may well have behaved paternalistically, sometimes with tough love, but it was not always about what we could get out of it. The National Service, the Bevin boys and the RAF ( who in the end mutinied) were examples of treating our own citizens very badly in the post war period.
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Dec 16, 2022 17:07:28 GMT
That is one of the great historical what-ifs. Had we rebuilt the economy like Germany rather than Nationalising everything in sight and creating a cradle to grave welfare state, would we be as economically successful?. Personally, given the calibre of post war governments and the power given to the unions I doubt it. It weas the calibre of government that caused the problems by misusing Marshall Aid money. Had they got together with the unions, agreed a way forward by investing in industry that would give workers a share of the created wealth, job done. But they didn't and they haven't, successive governments have never followed a policy of befriending the workforce; ever confrontation. Industry was in an excellent condition after the war how else could British equipment and ammunition's have been fed to British forces. The question is why did the industrialists, the rich and the captains of industry waste their opportunity to flourish. __"Clement Attlee became British Prime Minister in 1945. During the ensuing six years under his leadership, the nation was transformed from a wartime economy on the brink of bankruptcy to a prosperous and more egalitarian society. A serious, modest, and patriotic man, Attlee is heralded as one of the greatest Prime Ministers of the 20th century for his economic and social reforms, creation of the modern welfare state, and effective style of leadership. Attlee’s socialist policies focused on the fundamental needs of society, delivered by a supportive government where Attlee played the role of leader of a diversified and representative cabinet."__ buffinfoundation.org/britains-post-ww2-economic-recovery-profiles-in-leadership-clement-attlee/#:~:text=The%20Attlee%20government%E2%80%99s%20commitment%20to%20reducing%20income%20inequality,iron%2C%20steel%2C%20railways%2C%20and%20the%20Bank%20of%20England. You won't be able to talk with any of the average adults who suffered under the atrocious conditions that existed before the war.
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Dec 16, 2022 18:14:06 GMT
It weas the calibre of government that caused the problems by misusing Marshall Aid money. Had they got together with the unions, agreed a way forward by investing in industry that would give workers a share of the created wealth, job done. But they didn't and they haven't, successive governments have never followed a policy of befriending the workforce; ever confrontation. Industry was in an excellent condition after the war how else could British equipment and ammunition's have been fed to British forces. The question is why did the industrialists, the rich and the captains of industry waste their opportunity to flourish. __"Clement Attlee became British Prime Minister in 1945. During the ensuing six years under his leadership, the nation was transformed from a wartime economy on the brink of bankruptcy to a prosperous and more egalitarian society. A serious, modest, and patriotic man, Attlee is heralded as one of the greatest Prime Ministers of the 20th century for his economic and social reforms, creation of the modern welfare state, and effective style of leadership. Attlee’s socialist policies focused on the fundamental needs of society, delivered by a supportive government where Attlee played the role of leader of a diversified and representative cabinet."__ buffinfoundation.org/britains-post-ww2-economic-recovery-profiles-in-leadership-clement-attlee/#:~:text=The%20Attlee%20government%E2%80%99s%20commitment%20to%20reducing%20income%20inequality,iron%2C%20steel%2C%20railways%2C%20and%20the%20Bank%20of%20England. You won't be able to talk with any of the average adults who suffered under the atrocious conditions that existed before the war. Lend-lease agreement with the USA and millions of poundsworth of US food to give our troops the strength to pull the trigger; not to mention the food we imported mainly from the US to feed us landlubbers.
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Dec 16, 2022 18:44:21 GMT
Industry was in an excellent condition after the war how else could British equipment and ammunition's have been fed to British forces. The question is why did the industrialists, the rich and the captains of industry waste their opportunity to flourish. __"Clement Attlee became British Prime Minister in 1945. During the ensuing six years under his leadership, the nation was transformed from a wartime economy on the brink of bankruptcy to a prosperous and more egalitarian society. A serious, modest, and patriotic man, Attlee is heralded as one of the greatest Prime Ministers of the 20th century for his economic and social reforms, creation of the modern welfare state, and effective style of leadership. Attlee’s socialist policies focused on the fundamental needs of society, delivered by a supportive government where Attlee played the role of leader of a diversified and representative cabinet."__ buffinfoundation.org/britains-post-ww2-economic-recovery-profiles-in-leadership-clement-attlee/#:~:text=The%20Attlee%20government%E2%80%99s%20commitment%20to%20reducing%20income%20inequality,iron%2C%20steel%2C%20railways%2C%20and%20the%20Bank%20of%20England. You won't be able to talk with any of the average adults who suffered under the atrocious conditions that existed before the war. Lend-lease agreement with the USA and millions of poundsworth of US food to give our troops the strength to pull the trigger; not to mention the food we imported mainly from the US to feed us landlubbers. My point was that the industrial opportunity was there. According to what I've read in the past the Industrialist etc. thought they could plod along in their old way and did not recognise the threat from other countries that had no option but to rebuild their industries. The UK had an open market in other countries in which to sell cars, they sold inferior cars that gradually lost the market preference. Meanwhile Germany were building car producing factories in other countries.
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Dec 16, 2022 19:30:29 GMT
Lend-lease agreement with the USA and millions of poundsworth of US food to give our troops the strength to pull the trigger; not to mention the food we imported mainly from the US to feed us landlubbers. My point was that the industrial opportunity was there. According to what I've read in the past the Industrialist etc. thought they could plod along in their old way and did not recognise the threat from other countries that had no option but to rebuild their industries. The UK had an open market in other countries in which to sell cars, they sold inferior cars that gradually lost the market preference. Meanwhile Germany were building car producing factories in other countries. Sadly the workforce was somewhat light and with apprentice training it would take years to create the numbers lost in the war and conscripting kids instead of training them in industry was a massive mistake. Who in any post-war government thought thought there would be another war in the immediate future when by the early sixties they stopped conscription on the grounds they were getting enough volunteers. I think it more likely they needed the kids to complement the workforce at a time when employment was running high; it didn't last long.
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Dec 16, 2022 21:34:01 GMT
My point was that the industrial opportunity was there. According to what I've read in the past the Industrialist etc. thought they could plod along in their old way and did not recognise the threat from other countries that had no option but to rebuild their industries. The UK had an open market in other countries in which to sell cars, they sold inferior cars that gradually lost the market preference. Meanwhile Germany were building car producing factories in other countries. Sadly the workforce was somewhat light and with apprentice training it would take years to create the numbers lost in the war and conscripting kids instead of training them in industry was a massive mistake. Who in any post-war government thought thought there would be another war in the immediate future when by the early sixties they stopped conscription on the grounds they were getting enough volunteers. I think it more likely they needed the kids to complement the workforce at a time when employment was running high; it didn't last long. I think the first part of your post was true of the likes of Germany and France. I haven't checked but I've been told in the past that there was a major war roughly every 25 years.
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Dec 28, 2022 1:18:18 GMT
Maybe millions didn't have a clue what it entailed or couldn't give a shit. Maybe they believed Majors lies that nothing that could not be determined in the country would be determined by the new European Hegeminy.
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Dec 28, 2022 10:23:43 GMT
Sadly the workforce was somewhat light and with apprentice training it would take years to create the numbers lost in the war and conscripting kids instead of training them in industry was a massive mistake. Who in any post-war government thought thought there would be another war in the immediate future when by the early sixties they stopped conscription on the grounds they were getting enough volunteers. I think it more likely they needed the kids to complement the workforce at a time when employment was running high; it didn't last long. I think the first part of your post was true of the likes of Germany and France. I haven't checked but I've been told in the past that there was a major war roughly every 25 years. This post is more in the line of a PS. Apprentices would be expected to start their apprenticeship at age 16, and were not conscripted until they were 21 years of age, by which time they would be expected to have completed their apprenticeship.
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Dec 28, 2022 11:40:41 GMT
I think the first part of your post was true of the likes of Germany and France. I haven't checked but I've been told in the past that there was a major war roughly every 25 years. This post is more in the line of a PS. Apprentices would be expected to start their apprenticeship at age 16, and were not conscripted until they were 21 years of age, by which time they would be expected to have completed their apprenticeship. What sense is there in doing an apprenticeship only to be conscripted rather than allowed to work in the trade you had trained for; typical politician think.
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 28, 2022 11:48:37 GMT
Maybe millions didn't have a clue what it entailed or couldn't give a shit. Maybe they believed Majors lies that nothing that could not be determined in the country would be determined by the new European Hegeminy. Link please to back that accusation against John Major Because if you're referring to his April 1993 speech it's not what he said.
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Dec 28, 2022 11:49:00 GMT
This post is more in the line of a PS. Apprentices would be expected to start their apprenticeship at age 16, and were not conscripted until they were 21 years of age, by which time they would be expected to have completed their apprenticeship. What sense is there in doing an apprenticeship only to be conscripted rather than allowed to work in the trade you had trained for; typical politician think. It was a two year conscription for those over 21. That didn't mean that all apprentices were conscripted all at once, it was a gradual in out process. Hardly a barrier to progress. Oh and another after thought, many tradesmen were not called up during the war, a recognition that they would be needed after the war.
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Dec 28, 2022 11:56:40 GMT
What sense is there in doing an apprenticeship only to be conscripted rather than allowed to work in the trade you had trained for; typical politician think. It was a two year conscription for those over 21. That didn't mean that all apprentices were conscripted all at once, it was a gradual in out process. Hardly a barrier to progress. Well my national service was deferred to allow me to study. When I decided I no longer wanted a job in science just a couple of months before my final exam, I informed the relevant people and was having a medical and IQ test in around a month. My PULHEEMS (remember them) were perfect apart from scar tissue in my ears and I was eventually placed with the RAOC only to then get a letter from Her Majesty saying she didn't need me. I celebrated for a week.
|
|