O/T Politically will it be 1992 all over again?

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

sadly, a whole lot. humans are generally incapable or unwilling to think in the long term, or indeed in their own interests. you only have to look at the opposition to obama's health care reform, coming mainly from the people who stand to gain from it the most.

the cost of this is state intervention, but i doubt the state interferes in your life to an insufferable degree. after all, we are not living in a totalitarian state (despite what the mail tells you).

on the costs front, efficiency is good, but it should not be to the detriment of provision.

So Nanny knows best.

I believe the state, to a certain extent, should be there to pick up the pieces, and encourage you to provide for yourself and others. Other than that it should stop butting in.

It's not that I don't think people mean well by being involved but it creates dependance which can't be good.

 

[Tesco in Disguise]

you said yourself, its relative. so the "poor" are redefined despite increasing real terms wealth. it does also expose those that are workshy and slackers, i've lived in the inner city where chavs stay at home all day while immigrants go to work for £6/hr at 5am in the morning. this is a problem neither side seems to face or offer a solution to.

indeed. if the 'poor' can be defined as those with a certain fraction of what the richest in society have, if the rich become richer to a faster extent, the number to which this fraction applies, increases. conversely, if the rich are heavily taxed, and there are provisions for those on middle and low incomes, this number decreases, both due to the new lower yardstick of the rich, and the increase in relative wealth of the lower earners.

'chavs' and 'slackers' are the responsibility of the dwp (or whoever) to investigate. don't tarnish those in need and appreciative of benefit because of those who abuse the system. those who abuse it should be targeted, and penalised. there is nothing more heinous than the misuse of public funds, and no-one would argue against a meritocracy.

 

[Tesco in Disguise]

So Nanny knows best.

not best, but so often better.

read thomas frank for more on this (though there is a us slant).

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

not best, but so often better.

read thomas frank for more on this (though there is a us slant).

But its not as if they have voted against something that is free. Those healthcare reforms will cost them (in the form of taxes) more money. Now maybe you can make the argument that they will be a net benefactor from the scheme (so should support it), but doesn't that go against your argument that people should think about all in society?

 

[Chicken Run]

No it wasn't.

I remember it, though. And it WAS shit, and she WAS a bitch. Is that okay?

I remember it also, it wasnt shit, and the last 4 Labour Party leaders have been utter cocks!

 

[withdeanwombat]

What do you particularly remember not being'sweetness and light' under thatcher?

The war against the Argentines AFTER British foreign policy indicated a waning interest in the South Atlantic.Britons and Argentines died because of this woman's inability to grasp international relations.

The war against the miners and the closure of coalmines.Whilst many were becoming unviable,much of our coal reserve remains in the ground because of Thatcher's vindictiveness and wish for revenge after Heath's failure.Areas of OUR country were sent into turmoil by this intansigence.

The adoption of Reagonomics which resulted in the economic disaster which saw interest rates going upwards by the hour.I remember how people suffered from the simplistic approach to the economy and the glorification of trickle down.But like a more recent PM she was star struck by a US President, this one more often remembered for starring opposite a chimpanzee.

The general nastiness in politics at that time.

EVERYTHING under Thatcher was snide,which is why there was delight when FINALLY other Tories decided enough was enough and axed the miserable old besom.

 

[beorhthelm]

The war against the Argentines AFTER British foreign policy indicated a waning interest in the South Atlantic.Britons and Argentines died because of this woman's inability to grasp international relations.

so you even acknowledge the foriegn policy, yet then attribute the war to Thatcher grasp of international relations? heres a little secret: no leader know everything and they rely on their advisors for the information, nor do they make every decision in cabinet government. the foreign office f***ed that up.

on coal and the unions, you're quite right, off course she went too far. but then so had they in the 70's. no one won out of this fight really, except the Unions got knocked down to size. (im not anti-union, though i think the German work council model is far more constructive)

 

[Dandyman]

For party x, you obviously allude to the tories, i would contend that the tories under thatcher enabled more than a small percentage of the population to 'enrich' themselves as you so disdainfully put it,we cant all be part of the client state, also , i'm pretty sure that studies show that the gap between rich and poor has widened significantly under new labour.

Inequality has continued to grow under Neo-Labour although at a slower rate than during the 1980s and early 1990s. Given that this is the most right-wing "Labour" government since Ramsey MacDonald I don't express much suprise at that.

I have no problem with ordinary people getting on in life, what I do object to is the same small group of people growing ever fatter via engineered house price inflation, "selling off the family silver" as a former Tory PM put it, or any other of the countless sleazy little scams we have seen over the last 30 years.

 

[Dandyman]

so you even acknowledge the foriegn policy, yet then attribute the war to Thatcher grasp of international relations? heres a little secret: no leader know everything and they rely on their advisors for the information, nor do they make every decision in cabinet government. the foreign office f***ed that up.

on coal and the unions, you're quite right, off course she went too far. but then so had they in the 70's. no one won out of this fight really, except the Unions got knocked down to size. (im not anti-union, though i think the German work council model is far more constructive)

The Franks Report revealed that the Government had secretly met the Argentines before the conflict in an effort to offload the islands to them. Combine that with the withdrawl of the Endurance and the scale of incompetence/duplicity becomes overwhelming.

 

[Curious Orange]

The war against the Argentines AFTER British foreign policy indicated a waning interest in the South Atlantic.Britons and Argentines died because of this woman's inability to grasp international relations.

The war against the miners and the closure of coalmines.Whilst many were becoming unviable,much of our coal reserve remains in the ground because of Thatcher's vindictiveness and wish for revenge after Heath's failure.Areas of OUR country were sent into turmoil by this intansigence.

The adoption of Reagonomics which resulted in the economic disaster which saw interest rates going upwards by the hour.I remember how people suffered from the simplistic approach to the economy and the glorification of trickle down.But like a more recent PM she was star struck by a US President, this one more often remembered for starring opposite a chimpanzee.

I'm pretty sure that the British Government didn't tell the Argentinian one that it'd be "okay" to invade the Falklands, even if their policy wasn't as strong as it should have been at the time - the war would have been avoided if the Argentines hadn't invaded.

The miners strike will always be an emotive subject, and neither of the main protagonists comes out well from it - you can probably blame Scargill as much as Thatcher for the job losses, we should still have a substantial coal industry in this country, but the strike saw to it that we don't. On the plus side, the country is very rarely held to ransom by the Unions these days.

The economics of the time were odd, I think that Thatcher's worst mistake will probably go down as being bringing in the right to buy though.

 

[thejackal]

Thatcher's support for the murderous Chilean dictator Pinochet should tell you all you need to know about that odious cow's moral compass. That and the Poll Tax. I for one will not shed a tear when she shuffles off her mortal coil.

 

[BLOCK F]

The Lefties on this board seem to think that the money they wish to lavish on their client state just appears out of nowhere.Someone has to create the wealth and provide the jobs and pay the taxes so that the Government can then use that cash wisely,we hope,to do what Governments do.More wealth creation means more revenue for Government.
Capitalism is not perfect but it is better than any of the alternatives.
By the way,Tesco,you say that 'efficiency is good but it should not be to the detriment of provision.' Sadly for the anti capitalist brigade,without efficiency,the provision they want will either not be there or it will wither 'cos there won't be any money left!!Witness this woeful Government of ours.
Finally,I never fail to be astonished by the continued banging on about Margaret Thatcher by the lefties.If they haven't noticed she left power some time ago;but I suppose they have to have a figure of hate somewhere.

 

[Dandyman]

The Lefties on this board seem to think that the money they wish to lavish on their client state just appears out of nowhere.Someone has to create the wealth and provide the jobs and pay the taxes so that the Government can then use that cash wisely,we hope,to do what Governments do.More wealth creation means more revenue for Government.
Capitalism is not perfect but it is better than any of the alternatives.
By the way,Tesco,you say that 'efficiency is good but it should not be to the detriment of provision.' Sadly for the anti capitalist brigade,without efficiency,the provision they want will either not be there or it will wither 'cos there won't be any money left!!Witness this woeful Government of ours.
Finally,I never fail to be astonished by the continued banging on about Margaret Thatcher by the lefties.If they haven't noticed she left power some time ago;but I suppose they have to have a figure of hate somewhere.

And how many companies do you imagine rely on the public sector for contracts and income?

 

[BLOCK F]

Thatcher's support for the murderous Chilean dictator Pinochet should tell you all you need to know about that odious cow's moral compass. That and the Poll Tax. I for one will not shed a tear when she shuffles off her mortal coil.

On a lighter note,is the Poll Tax any worse than the current system.....some would say not?!!

 

[BLOCK F]

And how many companies do you imagine rely on the public sector for contracts and income?

Dandyman,you've lost me!!

 

[wellquickwoody]

My extended family were all Labour voters so with a certain amount of indoctrination I went the same route. I became old enough to vote in '84 so I waited with baited breath for the expected Kinnock victory that never came. I voted for 'New Labour' in the last three elections and was hoping for a better world.

Labour have directly given me nothing. All I now see is benefits given away to both those that are in need and those that can't be bothered. The interests of minority groups are regarded more highly than those of the majority.

As said by another poster, we all vote for our own interests first, unless we are rich enough that government policy makes no difference to our standard of living.

I live a reasonably comfortable life, but I am fed up subsidising other people and getting nothing in return. If I want to protect what I have worked for then I would be mad to continue voting Labour. The current Tory party may not be perfect but Labour can 'do one' as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Tesco in Disguise]

But its not as if they have voted against something that is free. Those healthcare reforms will cost them (in the form of taxes) more money. Now maybe you can make the argument that they will be a net benefactor from the scheme (so should support it), but doesn't that go against your argument that people should think about all in society?

they will be a net benefactor. service will be run in the interests of provision, rather than profit, and will aid those who need it most. the only ones for whom it might not be a straightforward benefit are those who are both healthy and rich, who are heavily outnumbered in their opposition by the poor and ill, mostly from republican 'heartlands'.

and, no, putting in to a public pot (i.e. taxes) and taking from it what you need, goes exactly with the argument that people should think about society.

 

[Deleted User X18H]

Historically Labour have always done better in Opinion Polls than real polls at general election time. In 1992 this was certainly the case and analysis after the event indicates it was the 25 to 45 female voters who felt that publically they should support Labour for the wider community benefits but when push came to shove, they voted on self interest basis at the polling station.

At the last two general elections the Tories have performed better on the day than polls indicated.

I would suggest that the Tories are probably on course for larger than the 30 seat majority currently predicted unless the following long shots occur:

- Gordon Brown has a storming performance at the Hutton show trial
- Alistair Darling is unneutered and allowed to run the economy (he actually does have a clue what is happening and what needs to happen)
- Ken Clark suddenly gets his voice back and starts disussing Europe
- George Osborne's sums are questioned in the level they should be (Independent analysis by the Institute of Fiscal studies identifies that labour's budget does actually add up albeit increasing debt whilst the Tories proposals will mean a further 12% to 17% reduction in education, defence and home security)
- People suss out David Cameron

Labour's best bet is a long campaign and some positive news on the economy around May.

In reality though and with the apathy of voters following the MP expenses items I cant see how Labour will be the biggest party come the summer

Oh and the manner of the Sun coming out for Cameron and at the same time mounting their attack on Brown over the letters to War bereaved have not had the positive Conservative bounce that either party expected.

What is there to suss out about David Cameron?He is the Prime Minister elect he will sweep into power in May or June rather like Thatcher did in 1979 I would expect to see either Liam Fox or Francis Maude given a prominent position within the next cabinet to bolster Cameron's foothold from within. I cannot see Labour in power again for 25 years or so. Cameron is an ex public school boy of the highest order this country has had its foundations built on confidence inspiring leaders like him. Rather than dour,r stammering face contorting Scotsmen who have almost proved them self remedial in their political knowledge and that are almost ridiculed and certainly manipulated by the worlds other super powers. Cameron has an air of super authority about him and a delicious ability to debate his point with sincerity and abundant charisma.

Any analysis by the 'Institute of Fiscal Studies' is influenced in thinly veiled Labour propaganda.

 

[Buzzer]

I do question my political judgement/allegiances at times. Usually when reading that people like HB&B support the same party as me.

I think ROSM has got it pretty much spot on. There are huge swathes of people who are not voting Tory because of Cameron. Rather - let's get anyone but Brown in.

I hope, I really really hope that if there is a Tory government with a decent 40+ majority at the next election that they finally lay to rest the ghost of Thatcherism and return to their One-Nation Conservatism roots. If only Iain Macleod hadn't popped his clogs, he could have been PM in the 70s, you know. There was a great and principled Tory.

 

[Deleted User X18H]

I do question my political judgement/allegiances at times. Usually when reading that people like HB&B support the same party as me.

I think ROSM has got it pretty much spot on. There are huge swathes of people who are not voting Tory because of Cameron. Rather - let's get anyone but Brown in.

I hope, I really really hope that if there is a Tory government with a decent 40+ majority at the next election that they finally lay to rest the ghost of Thatcherism and return to their One-Nation Conservatism roots. If only Iain Macleod hadn't popped his clogs, he could have been PM in the 70s, you know. There was a great and principled Tory.

Yes but McLeod's proposals for cuts in public spending, published posthumously I think, are likely to be mimicked when Cameron and Osbourne sweep into clear up the current mess.

Just because Mcleod helped set up 'Crisis' doesn't been he was any less right wing. I doubt if had had run against Thatcher for leadership after Heath's demise he would have beaten our darling of the Tory Party.

Without Thatcherism people of our generation wouldn't have big houses and small or non existent mortgages.