MSE News: Margaret Thatcher 'leader to knock Britain into shape'

Stryder

prob. a poll of the MSE offices and I reckon Martin gets 60% of the votes tee hee hee

gt94sss2

Doc_N wrote: »

It wasn't Labour that caused the deficit. It was the recession. And who caused the recession? The City, with characteristic greed and complex financial instruments which few people understood, and which went badly wrong when they imploded

While Labour isn't really responsible for the big increase in the deficit - its big error was not running a budget surplus during the 'good times' which left the UK with less flexibility to play with when the downturn occurred. Partly as they began to believe their own PR about 'abolishing boom and bust'.

The recessions started in the US, partly due to their banking system but not helped by their politicians or regulators. It was made worse here (i.e. Northern Rock) by Labour's own stupid changes to the regulatory system which left no one in charge.

Regards
Sunil

gt94sss2

villa2010 wrote: »

New Labour were not about being right of center that's laughable it was about the fight for the middle ground NOT right of center.

The middle ground being slightly right of centre..

Are you suggesting that the majority of Labours manifesto for the last General election was prodimently right of center. If so I strongly suggest you read it again.

The Liberal Democrats are traditional left of center. Just read there manifesto.

And Labour lost.. though what you must also realise is that parties only pay lip service to their manifesto's these days - and the Lib Dems could put whatever they liked in theirs as no one (including them) thought they would be in power (just consider student fees).

Labour are traditionally left wing and they will be left of center under Milliband as he is endearing to the trade Unions.

Between them they received 14.5 million votes at the last election.

The Tories received 10 Million.

All the big parties are known as broad churches - only fools believe that all lib dems would vote for one of the big parties or the other. At the next election, expect to see the lib dems support split between the other two..

Did you answer my question on how many were people were unemployed under Thatcher..?

Look it up? - though the figures in some way are meaningless as governments have fiddled with the definitions for years..

Also do you think people can be persuaded who to vote for by the media?

As a rule/over the longer term no, I think people generally read/watch media which supports views they already have rather than the other way around.

Regards
Sunil

JuicyJesus

gt94sss2 wrote: »

And Labour lost..

It was a hung parliament. Everyone lost.

villa2010

The middle ground being slightly right of centre..

"a standpoint or area midway between extreme or opposing positions, options, or objectives"

What are you talking about - the middle ground is exacly that middle ground neither left of right, its not quantum physics.

And Labour lost.. though what you must also realise is that parties only pay lip service to their manifesto's these days - and the Lib Dems could put whatever they liked in theirs as no one (including them) thought they would be in power (just consider student fees).

Labour may have lost but the Tories did not win.


All the big parties are known as broad churches - only fools believe that all lib dems would vote for one of the big parties or the other. At the next election, expect to see the lib dems support split between the other two..

Look it up? - though the figures in some way are meaningless as governments have fiddled with the definitions for years..

I know exactly how many were unemployed your ignoring the point. Are you saying that 4 million is meaningless. It says it all really. The point is a heck of a lot of people were unemployed would you agree of disagree.

As a rule/over the longer term no, I think people generally read/watch media which supports views they already have rather than the other way around.

oh dear :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

When Tony Blair became leader for the Labour Party who the very very very first person he had a meeting with.................?!!! (Take a guess)


Are you a Daily Fail reader...?!!!

norapower

A hung Parliament, At last we are getting somewhere, can I test the rope please !

tagq2

I hope this puts to rest the belief that the current government has any notion of economics or budgeting responsibility.

Doc_N

tagq2 wrote: »

I hope this puts to rest the belief that the current government has any notion of economics or budgeting responsibility.

Perish the notion that the Tories have been offered some 'donations' by the housebuilders in return.

billybigtime

Bring back thatcher?

having thought about this for all of two seconds

no thank you

John_Pierpoint

There were two factors in Thatcher's success:

1. Absolutely nothing to do with her - 8 million years of oil was discovered in the North Sea and burnt. This created a short period when there was actually talk of paying off the national debt. That would have had Napoleon spinning in his grave and dreaming of a nation of Shopkeepers. So where is our sovereign wealth fund ?

2. Argentina, just like Iraq/Kuwait with the Americans, got mixed messages from the Foreign Office. So a plan to rescue and unite a bankrupt failing economy run by a junta, was hatched.
Thatcher managed to turn the tables and get a nation united behind her in a venture to reclaim a lost making territory belonging, in the main, to a coal processing company.

Prior to that she hadn't a clue what she was doing.

Those who cannot remember the 1970's obviously weren't there:
A bankrupt nation staggering from crisis to crisis, with nothing working properly and a 6 month waiting list for a telephone.
Asset stripping coach loads of tourists coming over from Europe to buy what ever they could get their hands on. Then the whole economy coming to an investment standstill, when the IMF took over the running of the country. Does this sound like Italy now?

The real achievement of Thatcher and Reagan, was being there when the "socialist paradise" of the Soviet Union was bankrupted by trying to keep up in the[STRIKE] arms [/STRIKE] technology race.

This ushered in the global economy (in some ways it got us back to where we where in Edwardian times).

The failure was not realising that every organisation promotes its own expansion - turkeys never vote for Xmas.

So since the 1960's we have allowed government spending to double as a proportion of GDP from roughly 25% to 50% with taxation that has tried but failed to match.

So with half the population now dependent on deficit state spending for their lively hood, is it any wonder that this thread is full of them worrying about their future, and giving misplaced diagnosis of the causes of their predicament ?

Doc_N wrote: »

What was wrong with the GLC and ILEA? They both did a perfectly good job, and it was only Thatcher's political motivation that got rid of them. Why do you feel that things are better in London now?

It was having a rival administration on the other side of the river Thames, that was the last straw.

Anyone remember the briefing against Ken Livingstone?
Mad policies like "Fares Fair" blocked by central government?

We needed a London to be rebuilt based on the motor car:
:rotfl:
Limehouse tunnel versus mickey mouse railway?

dunstonh wrote: »

You cannot ignore the fact that she turned around this country from being virtually bankrupt and close to being reclassified as the first developed economy to be reclassified as third world

Yes we were near to following Argentina: 100 years ago the world's third richest country per head but over borrowed and running a deficit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_mFmTEQdz8&feature=related