[Politics] Which British Prime Minister had the most profund effect on your life?

[Stato]

Might upset a few on here, but for me its Maggie, she abolished the closed shop policy with the Unions, which allowed me to pursue my hobby of sports writing in the local press.

In the old days the only NUJ members were allowed to have published articles and reports with a by-line.

Granted, that said she also did a lot of bad things.

I knew that she was responsible for most of the ills of modern Britain, but now I find that your column in the Sussex Express was also her fault! Are there no end to her sins?


(I quite liked your column really, but that was an opportunity to good to turn down).

 

[Russconha]

Tony Blair. The illegal war in Iraq is directly responsible for the rise in terrorism and we had no reason to fear Arabs with a backpack up to this point.

 

[dsr-burnley]

Thatcher.

She was PM during my teens and transition into adulthood.

She enabled me to decide how I felt about the principle of me-first selfishness and “there’s no such thing as society” everyone for themselves.

For my generation, you were either for or against this, because it was what she stood for. Did you agree that everyone was the author of their own fortunes, and that little or no allowance should be given to ‘circumstances beyond your control’ in terms of someone’s fate and lot in life - or not?

I didn’t. And as a result, her legacy to me has been a lifelong aversion to what it represents - both as a concept and as a behaviour/value in people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Rather a shame that you have built a philosophy based on a lie. This is what Margaret Thatcher said:

""They are casting their problems at society. And, you know, there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours." – in an interview in Women's Own in 1987

Her point being, that it's no use looking at your neighbour who is struggling and thinking "society will help". You need to look at your neighbour and think "I will help". Society, as a means of helping people, does not exist; people, as a means of helping people, do exist.

 

[drew]

I'd agree if it wasn’t just for that blip in being complicit in the murder of tens of thousands innocent Iraqis

The downside to that argument is that any British prime minister would have done exactly the same.

 

[drew]

Rather a shame that you have built a philosophy based on a lie. This is what Margaret Thatcher said:

""They are casting their problems at society. And, you know, there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours." – in an interview in Women's Own in 1987

Her point being, that it's no use looking at your neighbour who is struggling and thinking "society will help". You need to look at your neighbour and think "I will help". Society, as a means of helping people, does not exist; people, as a means of helping people, do exist.

That's one interpretation!

A group of people helping a neighbour in hard times is the definition of society. The problem with Thatcher was how far do you look after yourself before you consider helping others!

 

[Dick Swiveller]

What's wrong with a "heated debate" ?

Nothing but the Mrs Merton quote used to be his stock in trade.

 

[Questions]

The downside to that argument is that any British prime minister would have done exactly the same.

You’re almost certainly right there drew but it still always sways my impression when they contribute to mass murder.

 

[dsr-burnley]

That's one interpretation!

A group of people helping a neighbour in hard times is the definition of society. The problem with Thatcher was how far do you look after yourself before you consider helping others!

There's another quote from Margaret Thatcher - “No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions; he had money as well.”

It's true that Mrs T's quote does not solve all the world's philosophical problems in one line. Whether that constitutes a problem or not is arguable - one sentence isn't really long enough for quite such a panacea! Obviously Mother Teresa of Calcutta is the poster child for self-sacrifice and compassion, giving all her life and all her time to the poor - but remember even she had financial backing from people who spent their time making money and sharing some of it.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Clement Atlee, via Nye Bevan, for creation of the NHS.

This is the correct answer

 

[bhafc99]

Rather a shame that you have built a philosophy based on a lie. This is what Margaret Thatcher said:

""They are casting their problems at society. And, you know, there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours." – in an interview in Women's Own in 1987

Her point being, that it's no use looking at your neighbour who is struggling and thinking "society will help". You need to look at your neighbour and think "I will help". Society, as a means of helping people, does not exist; people, as a means of helping people, do exist.

That means that whether or not people who need 'help' will receive help depends on others' personal willingness to give it.

She's devolving responsibilities that should be provided collectively down to a question of individual choice.

It not only reinforces the question of do "you agree that everyone was the author of their own fortunes, and that little or no allowance should be given to ‘circumstances beyond your control’ in terms of someone’s fate and lot in life - or not?", it actually extends it by encouraging you to apply your view not only to yourself, but to how you treat others.

 

[The Mole]

Without a doubt it was Thatcher for me. The country changed from a manufacturing-based economy to service-based. It became more fractured as a result with the north-south divide becoming more pronounced.
She introduced Saatchi and Saatchi into campaigning.
Greed was turned into a virtue rather than a vice.
Trade Union influence was diminished.
She led the way for the single market to be introduced in Europe
A sense of community was lost as a look after number one mantra came into being
There were very few people sleeping rough before she cam to power
The country’s wealth increased

Also during her time in power a number of factors happened outside her control such as the collapse of the Soviet bloc, the IT revolution, North Sea oil dividends

I’m no fan of hers, but you can’t deny the impact she had on the country

 

[Thunder Bolt]

That means that whether or not people who need 'help' will receive help depends on others' personal willingness to give it.

She's devolving responsibilities that should be provided collectively down to a question of individual choice.

It not only reinforces the question of do "you agree that everyone was the author of their own fortunes, and that little or no allowance should be given to ‘circumstances beyond your control’ in terms of someone’s fate and lot in life - or not?", it actually extends it by encouraging you to apply your view not only to yourself, but to how you treat others.

Hence, my Ghandi quote in my signature.

 

[maltaseagull]

The current one, and not in any good way.

Luckily he arrived too late to cause me massive problems personally, but my kids and their futures (and therefor most profound effect on me)

I wasn't aware he personally introduced Covid which surely is the cause of most of his decisions be they good or bad.
But then again, no surprise in your post.

 

[Swansman]

Thatcher since we over here decided to buy in to all that neo-liberal bullshit.

 

[Swansman]

I suspect Churchill. He was PM during the war. Lose that, and i think my life would have been radically different.

Yeah you'd have a couple of more World Cup medals!

 

[Seasidesage]

Thatcher. Changed the country. Some good things but an awful lot of bad. The country was a happier nicer place before Thatcher IMO at least.

 

[WATFORD zero]

I wasn't aware he personally introduced Covid which surely is the cause of most of his decisions be they good or bad.
But then again, no surprise in your post.

Did someone, somewhere, say he personally introduced Covid

He was late introducing lockdowns (3 times)
Late introducing testing
Didn't prioritise Carehomes
Late introducing quarantine for entries to the UK
Still waiting for a working track and trace
Put out numerous contracts out to suppliers with no history of anything except links to his Government
Put early orders in for vaccines

He decided to campaign to Leave the EU purely for his own career
He decided to push ahead with it in the middle of a Pandemic
He introduced a border between NI and the rest of the UK
He negotiated a 'deal' that is unimplementable
He has no plan for getting us out of this unsustainable position that he has now put us in
The economy continues to crash as a result of his deal
The economic impact of what he has done hasn't even started
Has just pushed through a law to allow us to trade with countries undertaking genocide (last night)

You're right though, he didn't personally introduce Covid

But then again, no surprise you're backing him in your post.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

 

[Pint of Ale and a Burger]

Major,Blair,Brown, Cameron,May and Johnson.
Because they all made me realise that despite giving the illusion of being from different sides of the political spectrum and us living in a democracy,they were all actually just middle management all working towards the same global agenda with all the other countries puppet governments.
And Blair is still at it now!he is chomping at the bit to be president of the world in 2030.crazy.

These are just my feelings as a member of the public.i am not an in the know person or an expert on politics.

 

[beorhthelm]

Without a doubt it was Thatcher for me. The country changed from a manufacturing-based economy to service-based. It became more fractured as a result with the north-south divide becoming more pronounced.
She introduced Saatchi and Saatchi into campaigning.
Greed was turned into a virtue rather than a vice.
Trade Union influence was diminished.
She led the way for the single market to be introduced in Europe
A sense of community was lost as a look after number one mantra came into being
There were very few people sleeping rough before she cam to power
The country’s wealth increased

Also during her time in power a number of factors happened outside her control such as the collapse of the Soviet bloc, the IT revolution, North Sea oil dividends

I’m no fan of hers, but you can’t deny the impact she had on the country

its never really clear why changing from manufacturing to services would fracture society or even change the north-south divide. does the tight family links and community depend upon manufacturing? as someone said "the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate"*. the greed is good was a cultural import from US cinema more than political direction from Thatcher.

also observation on rough sleeping, noted in the 70's and before squats were common, even a way of living for many, so you didnt see the homeless.

* yes, Thatcher, the sentence right after "no such thing as society".