Thatcher

[Liquid validity]

Its purely a question of realistic choice.

Thatcher or Callaghan 79
United Kingdom general election, 1979 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thatcher or Foot 83
United Kingdom general election, 1983 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thatcher or Kinnock 87
United Kingdom general election, 1987 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not saying she was perfect or that I agree with everything she did.
The alternatives would have made a right mess though.

 

[Liquid validity]

Hi L v,
Are you a Tory and, if so, have you been one for 10 years or more? Could be bad news! Judging by the quality of your posts, and by the yardstick you offer here, I'd say you're definitely not a Tory.

Tim.

Actually Tim I'm nothing.
I'll vote for whoever offers to protect my own selfish interests.
At least I'm honest in saying that, and I don't care what anyone
thinks of me for that.

I'm past the point of thinking that holding hands and singing
we are the world will cure the worlds ails.
Currently the only thing I care about is staying out of the Euro
and not having the trans tax, so that = tories.
If the policy on that was reversed, I'd vote Labour, no qualms.
I don't care.

Given the current choice, though, I just don't see Ed as PM material,
and his brother is probably forever stained with Iraq.
I'm not really into party politics, never have been.
I'm a staunch supporter of no one.
Just need a band aid or two for the fence splinters

I absolve myself from selfish guilt by donating to a few charities.
The world ain't perfect, never has been, never will be.

 

[Atilla]

Its purely a question of realistic choice.

Thatcher or Callaghan 79
United Kingdom general election, 1979 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thatcher or Foot 83
United Kingdom general election, 1983 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thatcher or Kinnock 87
United Kingdom general election, 1987 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not saying she was perfect or that I agree with everything she did.
The alternatives would have made a right mess though.

I liked Kinnock (and the late John Smith)... Agree re: the other two...

 

[Liquid validity]

I liked Kinnock (and the late John Smith)... Agree re: the other two...

Whether or not you liked Kinnock, he was not a realistic alternative.
Agree on Smith though, of all he was the most realistic and viable alternative.

 

[Splitlink]

and his brother is probably forever stained with Iraq.

and Sunderland United

 

[neil]

Its purely a question of realistic choice.

Thatcher or Callaghan 79
United Kingdom general election, 1979 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thatcher or Foot 83
United Kingdom general election, 1983 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thatcher or Kinnock 87
United Kingdom general election, 1987 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not saying she was perfect or that I agree with everything she did.
The alternatives would have made a right mess though.

I always remember Kinnock falling **** over tit whilst taking part in a photo shoot. Now he has his snout in the EU pigs trough. Pillock !

 

[Liquid validity]

I always remember Kinnock falling **** over tit whilst taking part in a photo shoot. Now he has his snout in the EU pigs trough. Pillock !

Wasn't that when he fell in the sea?
And rolling his Sierra
Met him once, not PM stuff.

 

[Splitlink]

I was long out of the UK by the time she arrived on the scene, but if I had been there I would have voted for anyone who I thought could break the hold that the unions had on the country. Who would not have?

 

[Atilla]

Whether or not you liked Kinnock, he was not a realistic alternative.
Agree on Smith though, of all he was the most realistic and viable alternative.

He did much to reform the labour party and took on the unions.

Kinnock prepared ground for Blair to follow through.

Beg to differ. Kinnock and Smith would have been very good for labour as an alternative to Thatcher.

 

[new_trader]

I absolve myself from selfish guilt by donating to a few charities.
The world ain't perfect, never has been, never will be.

Nothing wrong with being selfish. The world would be a better place if more people were selfish in nature instead of collective. What makes it worse is they believe that they are morally superior and therefore impose their collective ideals on others. Imagine being forced to share your trading profits with everyone at T2W just because the majority voted for it.

 

[Liquid validity]

Beg to differ. Kinnock and Smith would have been very good for labour as an alternative to Thatcher.

As electoral choices, Kinnock was a non starter, Smith may have had a chance.
Fact is Kinnock lost in 87 and 92, that was the electorates verdict,
hence why I say he was not viable.

 

[counter_violent]

Wasn't that when he fell in the sea?
And rolling his Sierra
Met him once, not PM stuff.

Neil Kinnock gets his bum wet - YouTube
Plus ça spit #8 - YouTube

 

[Atilla]

As electoral choices, Kinnock was a non starter, Smith may have had a chance.
Fact is Kinnock lost in 87 and 92, that was the electorates verdict,
hence why I say he was not viable.

viable???

Didn't have the looks more like. I was referring to being good for the country. He was also prepared for and did take a much firmer handle on the unions.

Our current toy boys with Cameron and Osborne more styled to appeal for the ladies and made out to be presentable. Too young imo. Not my idea of leadership. Its all so manufactured. Dumbed down for the masses.

They may well be ripe for leadership by the time they are 55-60 I reckon.

Would much prefer Iain Duncan Smith or Kenneth Clarke as leaders. I guess they are too old and bold.

There is our democracy for you...

 

[Liquid validity]

viable???

Didn't have the looks more like. I was referring to being good for the country. He was also prepared for and did take a much firmer handle on the unions.

Yes not viable.
He lost 2 elections and couldn't even
see the probability of getting wet...
http://www.trade2win.com/boards/foyer/171342-thatcher-9.html#post2110404
Not someone I'd want in control.
Probably one of the least credible opposition leaders going.

Nobody cares about achievements, its about credibility on the world stage.
That sounds like a popularity contest, which politics pretty much is.
Then again, that same person is the one you choose to be locked in
a room until the small hours thrashing out a deal with other world leaders.
So in that sense, credibility, poise and stature are vastly important.
That does sound superficial, yet those traits are sometimes (not always)
accompanied by more subtle, and more important traits.
Kinnock did not have those traits.

His background has SFA to do with it.
I actually have a lot of respect for Jack Straw,
who was from a single parent family living on a council estate...
As for looks - Churchill was hardly johnny depp.
They both have far more credibility than Kinnock.

As for Cameron, I keep going on about alternatives - for me he is
better than the alternative of Ed.
Yes, neither are a Lincoln or Churchill etc.
Its all about choice in the moment.

 

[Atilla]

Yes not viable.
He lost 2 elections and couldn't even
see the probability of getting wet...
http://www.trade2win.com/boards/foyer/171342-thatcher-9.html#post2110404
Not someone I'd want in control.
Probably one of the least credible opposition leaders going.

Nobody cares about achievements, its about credibility on the world stage.
That sounds like a popularity contest, which politics pretty much is.
Then again, that same person is the one you choose to be locked in
a room until the small hours thrashing out a deal with other world leaders.
So in that sense, credibility, poise and stature are vastly important.
That does sound superficial, yet those traits are sometimes (not always)
accompanied by more subtle, and more important traits.
Kinnock did not have those traits.

His background has SFA to do with it.
I actually have a lot of respect for Jack Straw,
who was from a single parent family living on a council estate...
As for looks - Churchill was hardly johnny depp.
They both have far more credibility than Kinnock.

As for Cameron, I keep going on about alternatives - for me he is
better than the alternative of Ed.
Yes, neither are a Lincoln or Churchill etc.
Its all about choice in the moment.

Agree about Churchill but in the old days things were different. Now days most things are make up and training on presentation without substance.

Vince Cable or Nick Clegg?
Kenneth Clarke or Ian Duncan Smith or William Hague or Cameron?
Gordon Brown or David Milliband? Where on earth did Ed come from (TU vote you say )

It's about looks youth and presentation. Substance, achievement and standing has nothing do with it.


All this thrashing out late into the hours and so forth is rubbish. What one needs is a good manager who can bring / promote good people who can deliver and extract the best out of them. Take advice, compromise and produce positive change that people want.

International stage is also much ado about nothing. Usually downfall of these so call big leaders who get ahead of them selves wasting time else where instead of managing domestic issues. Moreover, on international visit a whole host of civil servants and professionals usually do the discussions into the late hours. PMs read the scripts.

This is where all this greatness nonsense gets us. Nowhere fast. People think we are important on the world stage whilst country goes down the pan.

We have an aging popullation with couple of wet Etonites who know how to present themselves and talk politics in front of cameras. Trained in the art of illusion on how to answer difficult questions admirably well whilst smiling.

 

[Liquid validity]

Vince Cable or Nick Clegg?
Kenneth Clarke or Ian Duncan Smith or William Hague or Cameron?
Gordon Brown or David Milliband? Where on earth did Ed come from (TU vote you say )

It's about looks youth and presentation. Substance, achievement and standing has nothing do with it.

Vince Cable
Cable hasn't run...yet.

Clarke has always been on the fringes of the Tory core - i.e. not in sync.
Hague lost the 2001 election.
Duncan Smith had a vote of no confidence as leader.
Gordon Brown f**ked the economy then convinced everyone
to print and bailout - good short term band aid.

So what is your point?
They all had a shot and blew it (apart from Cable).
None of them blew it due to a lack of looks, youth or presentation.
They just f**ked up, plain and simple.

All this thrashing out late into the hours and so forth is rubbish. What one needs is a good manager who can bring / promote good people who can deliver and extract the best out of them. Take advice, compromise and produce positive change that people want.

International stage is also much ado about nothing. Usually downfall of these so call big leaders who get ahead of them selves wasting time else where instead of managing domestic issues. Moreover, on international visit a whole host of civil servants and professionals usually do the discussions into the late hours. PMs read the scripts.

Of course aides and civil servants are important.
No one is disputing that.
I've yet to see any of them offering prompts, or hand holding
at PM questions or live debates.
Certainly not physically entering the discussion.

This is where all this greatness nonsense gets us. Nowhere fast. People think we are important on the world stage whilst country goes down the pan.

http://www.trade2win.com/boards/forex/168936-euro-finished-4.html#post2097206
Agree in terms of most powerful and influential countries.
Still, the post linked above shows that the UK is hardly a 3rd world backwater,
and that's just using German trade as an example.

We have an aging popullation with couple of wet Etonites who know how to present themselves and talk politics in front of cameras. Trained in the art of illusion on how to answer difficult questions admirably well whilst smiling.

So what is the solution then, Milliband to the rescue, and carry us headlong
into the euro vortex, of which he is apparently oblivious?

Sorry, but from where I'm standing, Cameron is the better option right now.
He at least wants to stop the UK from becoming embroiled in the euro disaster.
If you see a mushroom cloud in the distance, do you run the other way,
or run towards it with a bucket of water?
I'd be running the other way...

Just in case you think that is party political bias, I also think Blair was the right
choice at that particular point in time as well.

 

[counter_violent]

Vince Cable
Cable hasn't run...yet.

Clarke has always been on the fringes of the Tory core - i.e. not in sync.
Hague lost the 2001 election.
Duncan Smith had a vote of no confidence as leader.
Gordon Brown f**ked the economy then convinced everyone
to print and bailout - good short term band aid.

So what is your point?
They all had a shot and blew it (apart from Cable).
None of them blew it due to a lack of looks, youth or presentation.
They just f**ked up, plain and simple.


Of course aides and civil servants are important.
No one is disputing that.
I've yet to see any of them offering prompts, or hand holding
at PM questions or live debates.
Certainly not physically entering the discussion.


http://www.trade2win.com/boards/forex/168936-euro-finished-4.html#post2097206
Agree in terms of most powerful and influential countries.
Still, the post linked above shows that the UK is hardly a 3rd world backwater,
and that's just using German trade as an example.


So what is the solution then, Milliband to the rescue, and carry us headlong
into the euro vortex, of which he is apparently oblivious?

Sorry, but from where I'm standing, Cameron is the better option right now.
He at least wants to stop the UK from becoming embroiled in the euro disaster.
If you see a mushroom cloud in the distance, do you run the other way,
or run towards it with a bucket of water?
I'd be running the other way...

Just in case you think that is party political bias, I also think Blair was the right
choice at that particular point in time as well.

The problem is that it matters not who the names are...they are all non accountable because they have set up the frameworks in such a manner that allows it.

What would happen if....every country had to balance it's books year on year and if the govt overspent....the shortfall came out of next years budget?

All these ******s would leave immediately and we would then be left with competent people who would at least try to do a good job.

I'm all for writing an e-petition ref the above.

Would people sign it? Who knows 100,000 signatures required. Are there 100,000 sensible people in the UK ?

 

[Atilla]

Vince Cable
Cable hasn't run...yet.

Clarke has always been on the fringes of the Tory core - i.e. not in sync.
Hague lost the 2001 election.
Duncan Smith had a vote of no confidence as leader.
Gordon Brown f**ked the economy then convinced everyone
to print and bailout - good short term band aid.

So what is your point?
They all had a shot and blew it (apart from Cable).
None of them blew it due to a lack of looks, youth or presentation.
They just f**ked up, plain and simple.


Of course aides and civil servants are important.
No one is disputing that.
I've yet to see any of them offering prompts, or hand holding
at PM questions or live debates.
Certainly not physically entering the discussion.


http://www.trade2win.com/boards/forex/168936-euro-finished-4.html#post2097206
Agree in terms of most powerful and influential countries.
Still, the post linked above shows that the UK is hardly a 3rd world backwater,
and that's just using German trade as an example.


So what is the solution then, Milliband to the rescue, and carry us headlong
into the euro vortex, of which he is apparently oblivious?

Sorry, but from where I'm standing, Cameron is the better option right now.
He at least wants to stop the UK from becoming embroiled in the euro disaster.
If you see a mushroom cloud in the distance, do you run the other way,
or run towards it with a bucket of water?
I'd be running the other way...

Just in case you think that is party political bias, I also think Blair was the right
choice at that particular point in time as well.

You need to bear in mind Murdoch's press and media dominance had a lot to do with shaping public opinion for the last 20 decades in the UK. More a question of who got in bed with them. Right now it is a question of who looks cute rather than who is a respected statesmen. We can talk about these parties till the cows come home but the fact is we are in the same old mess as before means not much has changed.

My point is Thatcher other than taking unions down to size messed up the economy and much of what is attributed to her is more to do with gradual recovery in global trade.

She destroyed what she didn't understand on the whims of experimental monetary economics in search of some new economic solution to stop and go policies of the past.

We are not stronger as a result of her decade in power. Blair emulated the Conservatives and further took us into mess.

Good solution right now would be to re-nationalise some of the rip off utilities and use proceeds to pay back debt. One can not introduce competition into what is a natural monopoly. ie pipes going into a house.

We also need to start manufacturing some basic goods again. I think transport will always be a requirement from bikes to trains all forms including air.

We should also open up the coal mines again. I have no idea why we import 70% of our coal from Columbia, Poland or Russia whilst keeping perfectly fit men in idle ruin.

We need to put the steel back into Sheffield. We need to put the heart back into Birmingham and Coventry.

We need to look at what our competitors are doing and invest in the latest state of the art technology and production methods to win back markets.

We need to change land ownership and planning laws. Invest in promoting agriculture in small holdings as well as eco-green industries.

Service sector alone is insufficient clear insufficient. The big banks are still paying ridiculous bonuses and shareholders have not exactly lost out. I thought Brown did well to re-nationalise RBS and Lloyds in part at least when time comes treasury can recoup some bailouts back.


A good start would be to reverse Thatchers policies effectively. She wasn't the only choice and her policies are not the only solution either.

In fact the guy who advised her on the closure of coal mines was some American consultant Ian MacGregor who then went to I think advise on railway privatisation. Both pretty much big screw ups but there you go. Bring in the yanks to kick ass. He got a pretty big pay check too.

Shameful... Really really shameful painful remarkably inept destruction of the UK economy with seeds laid for rewarding failure after failure, greed and theft at a national grand scale.

Give her a medal and to all those who think she was great and there were no alternatives to her.

What a load of rubbish.

 

[Mr. Charts]

I can't say I ever liked Maggie or always agreed with her, but she was needed and transformed this country from the sick man of Europe into a modern society by various means. She damaged the power of the union barons though many people in the older smokestack rust belt industries lost their jobs through no fault of their own - unlike car workers and other groups who destroyed their own industries.
The reality of cheaper and more efficient overseas labour markets created some of the harsh economic suffering of many but that was an inevitability of modernisation of an old industrial economy trying to compete in a rapidly changing world.

I shudder to think of what our position would now be if Labour had continued in power or the Tories without Maggie. We would make Greece look efficient and prosperous.

A lot of the hatred is pure Leftist venom, some is based on personal experiences of unemployment in the 80s and the latter is at least understandable.

In the end she dragged a screaming resentful nation into modernity and at least some competitiveness in some fields. In doing so she generated hatred, but sometimes you have to see things in the whole, in the round and I would much rather have had her and her errors than the hideous alternative of union baron control and terminal decline.

How very much better off are the vast majority of people now than then.
As she herself said when forced out by the enemies she made in her own party, the country was so much better off when she left than when she came.
Rest In Peace, the great but flawed Maggie.

 

[bbmac]

Mate, I would sign it. I think it is Chile that enshrined the requirement for a balanced budget into law a few years ago. it's a good idea. Since The U.s won independence in 1776 they have only had 5 balanced budgets or better ie budget surpluses and 3 of them were under Clinton.....and the result - $15trillion of debt and counting forecast to rise to $24trillion by 2018. For 30 years we have been told by govts of both colours that we can have increased public spending and lower taxes...Doh ! I know it's a no brainer - but there has been no serious challenge to this lie resulting in the exponential growth in national debt - the interest owed to service it (not pay it back) is now more than the education and defence budgets put together. The public has chosen to believe it or at least not challenge it and so we are complicit in where we find ourselves today. Thatcher started the process with massive supply side reforms and shifting the tax burden away from income to spending (direct progressive to indirect regressive taxation ie in Howe's 2nd budget she cut the basic rate of income tax from 33p to 30p and virtually doubled vat from 8% to 15%...this trend has continued ever since in the vain but hopelessly disproven belief that by cutting tax on income it allows the economy to grow and the increase in gdp growth and resultant taxation increase will plug the gap between govt spending and govt income. Western govts even measure national debt as a % of GDP - but gdp is not govt income - debt should be measured relative to income but of course this figure would be way too scary so it is published as a measure of the larger gdp number lest the public get overly concerned and actually do something about it . By 2015 the end of this current parliament - this govt will have borrowed more than all previous govts in history put together. Regardless of how we got here/who's fault it is - yarda yarda - that is another debate, this is exponentiality at work and we and U.s and most of the Eu are on the wrong part of that curve.

Whilst we are at it let us have joined up thinking on consumer debt - let us join up the 3 main consumer credit reference agencies too (Equifax, Experian and the other one whose name escapes me) and let's make it law that personal unsecured lending can only account for x % (20% ish) of annual income at any time, and whilst we are at it let's return to a maximum multiple of 2.5 earnings for mortgage lending which along with other measures would drive house prices down and make home ownership affordable again. Will any of these measures happen any time soon - you can bet your life not !

Don't get me started lol (and this from a reputed socialist ! )

The problem is that it matters not who the names are...they are all non accountable because they have set up the frameworks in such a manner that allows it.

What would happen if....every country had to balance it's books year on year and if the govt overspent....the shortfall came out of next years budget?

All these ******s would leave immediately and we would then be left with competent people who would at least try to do a good job.

I'm all for writing an e-petition ref the above.

Would people sign it? Who knows 100,000 signatures required. Are there 100,000 sensible people in the UK ?