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

[e77]

Tory all the way for me, doesn't matter which one. Has allowed me to own my own home, work for myself, tell unions to go stuff themselves and has put food on the table without being told by socialists to share. It's all about me and my family you see, I don't want community or to be part of the greater good. I'll shop where I like, when I like and buy what I like. I don't give handouts nor would I expect them.
Righto, that should be just enough water thrown on the hot oil to see a few heads explode

So you don't want to pool resources and have things like an education system, police or NHS?

 

[e77]

Regardless of your views of her Thatcher did change the country. The debate is if it was better or worse.

 

[rippleman]

Probably the longest lasting effect any PM in my lifetime will be Cameron’s decision to hold a referendum to leave the EU, to paper over the cracks in the Conservative party. This has led , so far, to the most right wing government in my lifetime, divisions in the country that will take decades to heal, and very possibly the breakup of the Union.
Add to this , the economic carnage that could follow, and it does appear that it is the biggest post war decision this countries government has made.

If we had stayed in the EU do you really think we would have vaccinated ~50% of our population by now? Look at the total shambles the EU has made of vaccination.

They dithered and delayed for months before eventually ordering the AZ vaccine. Then they have wasted about 5m doses because they decided it was unsafe. Now they are throwing a hissy-fit demanding AZ vaccine doses from the UK that they will probably waste anyway.

Leaving the EU meant we could negotiate our own deal with AZ. We did that and paid for it so AZ was able to invest in its UK production line and produce more doses. Then fortunately the NHS took over the vaccinations (meaning we didn't need Dildo Harding and another quango ****ing it up).

So I would like to thank David Cameron for giving us the referendum to get out of Europe at just at the right time.

 

[WATFORD zero]

If we had stayed in the EU do you really think we would have vaccinated ~50% of our population by now? Look at the total shambles the EU has made of vaccination.

They dithered and delayed for months before eventually ordering the AZ vaccine. Then they have wasted about 5m doses because they decided it was unsafe. Now they are throwing a hissy-fit demanding AZ vaccine doses from the UK that they will probably waste anyway.

Leaving the EU meant we could negotiate our own deal with AZ. We did that and paid for it so AZ was able to invest in its UK production line and produce more doses. Then fortunately the NHS took over the vaccinations (meaning we didn't need Dildo Harding and another quango ****ing it up).

So I would like to thank David Cameron for giving us the referendum to get out of Europe at just at the right time.

I am sorry but what you have written above is quite simply factually incorrect. We negotiated the deal with AZ whilst still operating under the rules and regulations of the EU. Exactly the same as Hungary, a full EU member who did and continue to do the same.

There is no doubt that the EU have cocked up badly on vaccines, but leaving the EU has had no effect on the UK's ability to order vaccines independently. This the third time this has been pointed out in the last couple of pages of posts. To state otherwise is quite simply a lie

 

[drew]

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.

And most people don't judge Thatcher on just one sentence but on a litany of policies that were there for the sole intention of making the rich richer and putting the poor in their place.

 

[KeegansHairPiece]

Tory all the way for me, doesn't matter which one. Has allowed me to own my own home, work for myself, tell unions to go stuff themselves and has put food on the table without being told by socialists to share. It's all about me and my family you see, I don't want community or to be part of the greater good. I'll shop where I like, when I like and buy what I like. I don't give handouts nor would I expect them.
Righto, that should be just enough water thrown on the hot oil to see a few heads explode

Family delivered to you by NHS midwives, cared for by NHS doctors, a service born of community and the greater good. Slightly ironic.

 

[dsr-burnley]

And most people don't judge Thatcher on just one sentence but on a litany of policies that were there for the sole intention of making the rich richer and putting the poor in their place.

Under Thatcher, the rich got richer, and so did the poor. Either the poor are better off now than they used to be, or else there are far fewer poor people - either way, wealth has increased for more than just the top few percent.

 

[drew]

Under Thatcher, the rich got richer, and so did the poor. Either the poor are better off now than they used to be, or else there are far fewer poor people - either way, wealth has increased for more than just the top few percent.

But what is the gap between the very rich and the very poor. Don't remember food banks back in the 70s!!

 

[highflyer]

life was no longer at the whims of trades union bosses.

And now we live at the whim of billionaires and large corporations. Hurrah!

Thatcher the biggest influence in my lifetime, as more than any before or since, she was prepared to take the mask off and be honest about what the Tory party really stands for: Selfishness and greed.

Thus making me a life-long leftie liberal.

 

[beorhthelm]

And most people don't judge Thatcher on just one sentence but on a litany of policies that were there for the sole intention of making the rich richer and putting the poor in their place.

you say that, but people keep on making the society quote out of context, as a catch all for her policy and vision. and its false. failures of policy are there, usually from general conservatism and being wary of social change. but it wasnt born of selfishness, it was about self sufficiency. the major economic changes made the whole country richer, some winners and some losers. many more winners than some would like to pretend. that general policy have been carried on by all governments since, so must be working on some levels.

 

[Randy McNob]

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

and that had a profound effect on your life?

 

[dsr-burnley]

And now we live at the whim of billionaires and large corporations. Hurrah!

Thatcher the biggest influence in my lifetime, as more than any before or since, she was prepared to take the mask off and be honest about what the Tory party really stands for: Selfishness and greed.

Thus making me a life-long leftie liberal.

But at least the billionaires and large corporations will supply what you want. When the trade unions were in charge, it took six months to get a new telephone. Now, you can get a mobile instantly and a landline in a few days. And I suspect that more people can afford telephones than in the not-too-distant past as well.

The Rowntree foundation says that any family now who can't afford a car, and who can't afford a digital colour TV for everyone on the house and computer networks and computer systems including Microsoft (not Libra Office or Open Office), and who doesn't have £5k per year for leisure activities, is living in poverty. They may be right, they may be wrong. But if you go back to 1979 and try and define people with a telly and a car and all mod cons as being poor, and you'd be laughed at, because the standard of what is poverty has risen so very much.

 

[lawros left foot]

If we had stayed in the EU do you really think we would have vaccinated ~50% of our population by now? Look at the total shambles the EU has made of vaccination.

They dithered and delayed for months before eventually ordering the AZ vaccine. Then they have wasted about 5m doses because they decided it was unsafe. Now they are throwing a hissy-fit demanding AZ vaccine doses from the UK that they will probably waste anyway.

Leaving the EU meant we could negotiate our own deal with AZ. We did that and paid for it so AZ was able to invest in its UK production line and produce more doses. Then fortunately the NHS took over the vaccinations (meaning we didn't need Dildo Harding and another quango ****ing it up).

So I would like to thank David Cameron for giving us the referendum to get out of Europe at just at the right time.

As we hadn’t left the EU in reality when we ordered the majority of our vaccines, I fail to see your point. Each EU country had the choice to order vaccines through the EU scheme, or order independently. As the EU were sceptical about the efficacy of the so called Oxford jab, I believe we would have gone down the independent route from day one., even if we had still been a committed member of the EU.
Having said that, as you and I have discussed before, I don’t see the EU as perfect and believe we could have. changed what we didn’t like from within, if the will had been there. I have no aim to turn this thread into another interminable Brexit thread.

To say David Cameron held a referendum because of the problem the EU would have with a vaccine to a viral pandemic 4 years down the road is nonsensical.

 

[Stato]

Under Thatcher, the rich got richer, and so did the poor. Either the poor are better off now than they used to be, or else there are far fewer poor people - either way, wealth has increased for more than just the top few percent.

Are you aware of just how quickly anyone can Google 'UK poverty 1979 to 2021' and confirm this to be completely incorrect?

Just Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_Kingdom comes up with:

"From 1979 to 1987, the number of Britons living in poverty (defined as living on less than half the national average income) doubled, from roughly 10% to 20% of the whole population."

Arguing that the poor are better off only works if you completely discount the change in the value of money, the boom in credit and the reduction in cost of material goods created by technological advances. In reality the Thatcher government's policies had the exact opposite effect to the one you are suggesting.

Unsurprisingly, economic policies didn't magic up extra resources, so that everyone's share was larger. The rich got richer because their share of the total resources got larger. If you think about it, with resources being finite, that is the only possible way of it happening.

 

[zefarelly]

Has to be David Cameron, utter ****. and he has lots of very stiff competition.

 

[highflyer]

you say that, but people keep on making the society quote out of context, as a catch all for her policy and vision. and its false. failures of policy are there, usually from general conservatism and being wary of social change. but it wasnt born of selfishness, it was about self sufficiency. the major economic changes made the whole country richer, some winners and some losers. many more winners than some would like to pretend. that general policy have been carried on by all governments since, so must be working on some levels.

Well reading the quote in its entirety (sp?) still sounds just awful to me. And you can dress it up as you like, she was pretty open about what she stood for and her legacy speaks for itself in my view. We became a nastier, more selfish society under her guidance.

The phrase 'winners and losers' says it all really. I don't see life as a competition.
.

 

[Stato]

But at least the billionaires and large corporations will supply what you want. When the trade unions were in charge, it took six months to get a new telephone. Now, you can get a mobile instantly and a landline in a few days. And I suspect that more people can afford telephones than in the not-too-distant past as well.

The Rowntree foundation says that any family now who can't afford a car, and who can't afford a digital colour TV for everyone on the house and computer networks and computer systems including Microsoft (not Libra Office or Open Office), and who doesn't have £5k per year for leisure activities, is living in poverty. They may be right, they may be wrong. But if you go back to 1979 and try and define people with a telly and a car and all mod cons as being poor, and you'd be laughed at, because the standard of what is poverty has risen so very much.

Following that logic, nobody in 1979 lived in poverty either because back in the stone age people were all living in caves. Its a nonsense argument that ignores technological progress. As goods get cheaper, if you want to make the comparison you suggest, you should be comparing them with goods that would have cost a relatively similar proportion of the average wage at the time; a digital TV now could be a transistor radio in 1979 (or a conch shell in the stone age). Measurement of poverty has to be relative because it is always measuring the share someone has of the currently available resources.

 

[highflyer]

Are you aware of just how quickly anyone can Google 'UK poverty 1979 to 2021' and confirm this to be completely incorrect?

Just Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_Kingdom comes up with:

"From 1979 to 1987, the number of Britons living in poverty (defined as living on less than half the national average income) doubled, from roughly 10% to 20% of the whole population."

Arguing that the poor are better off only works if you completely discount the change in the value of money, the boom in credit and the reduction in cost of material goods created by technological advances. In reality the Thatcher government's policies had the exact opposite effect to the one you are suggesting.

Unsurprisingly, economic policies didn't magic up extra resources, so that everyone's share was larger. The rich got richer because their share of the total resources got larger. If you think about it, with resources being finite, that is the only possible way of it happening.

The arguments also hinge on the assumption that what makes people better, or worse, off is only how much money they have. Not what kind of society they live in, how secure they feel, how optimistic they are for their childrens future, the environment they have around them, how much time they spend with family etc etc.

A lot of that has become worse, even as many people have become slightly less poor.

 

[Randy McNob]

Since no one mentioned Gordon Brown i'll throw his hat into the ring

He was canny enough to realise (whilst Chancellior + PM) the rifts and instability an EU referendum would cause and never allowed it

 

[Yes Chef]

https://open.spotify.com/episode/2C...i=8F3_VSobQ--xyaEziaDsjg&utm_source=copy-link


Prescient podcast that came out yesterday