In our best interests or in theirs?

What's Hot
2

Comments

  • hywelghywelg Frets: 1514
    Brexit is a party divider for both Labour and Conservatives.  Both parties are having to fudge their responses and policies in order to keep their parties intact. Labour are in the enviable position of not having to do or say very much so they look more electable, but they would face exactly the same conflicts as the Conservatives if they were in power at the moment. 

    I personally prefer conviction politicians and I do admire Corbyn for being that, just as much as I'd still admire Thatcher for what she did and stood for. Ken Clarke is my MP and I still voted for him even though is disagree with his EU stance. Problem with Corbyn is that his policies will cost the country dearly and with our Labour created debt we are in no position to go borrowing to spend on public services. 
    4reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • ICBMICBM Frets: 31601
    hywelg said:

    with our Labour created debt we are in no position to go borrowing to spend on public services. 
    Labour didn’t create the debt.

    More debt has been added since 2010 than by all the Labour governments in history put together.

    The Tories are the party of debt, not Labour - but if you repeat a myth enough times, it becomes accepted.
    "Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone."
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 6reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • Axe_meisterAxe_meister Frets: 2151
    Dept will always increase whilst there is a deficit. The 2008 crash exposed a massive overspend which was hidden when tax receipts were still coming in. That is why debt increased but the deficit is being reduced. 
    This is a cycle that happens time after time. Labour comes in, inheriting a good economy a crash occurs exposing high government spending, so more debt is accrued whilst the Tories get spending under control.
    Labour overspend whilst the Tories over cut.
    2reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • jpfampsjpfamps Frets: 1366
    ICBM said:
    hywelg said:

    with our Labour created debt we are in no position to go borrowing to spend on public services. 
    Labour didn’t create the debt.

    More debt has been added since 2010 than by all the Labour governments in history put together.

    The Tories are the party of debt, not Labour - but if you repeat a myth enough times, it becomes accepted.

    This is an interesting point; the national debt has indeed spiralled since the credit crunch.

    However, I find it very difficult to see how this could have been avoided. Economies are like ocean liners; it can take a long time for a significant direction change to occur.

    No-one has, in my opinion, come up with a satisfactory explanation as to what alternative course of action could have been taken, other than of course those people who think that the national debt is of no real consequence, but if you believe that then a) you can't really complain that said debt has increased, and b) as it has risen then we should all be feeling the benefits of this.

    Taxes have gone up, and government spending has been reigned in; you can argue about the relative balancing of these two actions (and think there is a good argument for slightly higher taxes and less reigning in of spending), but ultimately if you want the deficit reduced then a combination of these 2 things needed to happen.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • marantz1300marantz1300 Frets: 1470

    Every time the Conservatives are in power there are cuts and recessions.They were in power for 17.5 years after Thatcher won the 79 election and there were two recessions under their watch.

    Yet Labour got blamed.

    It's a bit like the Tories blaming immigrants and the poor for cuts and telling everyone that trickle down, give all the money to the rich is the best for everyone.

    They get away with it because half the population are idiots.



    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 6reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • HeartfeltdawnHeartfeltdawn Frets: 11037

    So, a specific example. I'll use the one I've been avoiding ever since I bumped into the Momentum guy a few days ago. 

    Brexit. We can't prove anything yet, one way or the other, that will change anyones minds about this. It's all about our personal beliefs. So, let's make some assumptions....

    Assume that Labour believes a hard Brexit is where we'll end up, and that a hard Brexit will make 50% or more of the population worse off in practical ways for the next 10 years - not enough money in the public purse, meaning some people will suffer in some way that they don't right now, and others that already suffer in some way will suffer more. 

    Assume that Labour believes it could unite with other politicians and either stop a hard Brexit or reimagine it in some way that there is protection for those people who might suffer - the people Labour says they care about the most. 

    Assume that Labour believes it could just watch the process go through, watch people suffer more than they have to - because they'll win more seats at the next General Election if they let the Conservatives be held responsible for causing that pain.

    Should they try to stop it or should they watch it happen? 

    To answer this, no-one needs to defend Labour or defend Brexit. Neither are under attack in this question I'm asking. I'm just using a hypothetical situation to find out what people think about the principle of the thing. 



    Should they try to stop it or should they watch it happen? 


    It depends on what the primary consideration of the Labour party is. 

    1. If it is to remain committed to principles above all else, then you oppose and do not consider anything else. 

    Labour --> oppose and operate on your principles --> might get into Downing Street, might not. Primary consideration followed. ,,


    2. If the primary consideration is getting into Downing Street, thus being ahead of principles, then you have more to consider. 

    Labour --> will opposing Brexit be more or less likely to get us into Downing Street? --> if more likely, we oppose. 
                                                                                                                              -->.if less likely, then we sit back.

    The second is more ruthless. But imagine these two scenarios:


    1. Labour oppose Brexit and manage to get it 'softened'. A year later a GE is held and Labour finish second. 

    2. Labour sit back. Brexit is a disaster. A year later a GE is held and Labour take the win and form a majority government. 


    The first scenario means you hold the moral high ground but you can't enact your own policies on a national level for another four years. 

    The second scenario means you have lost some moral high ground but you are in a position to enact your policies on a national level for the next four years. 

    'tis a tricky one. 

    So answering the question in bold involves certain assumptions about the priorities of the entity concerned. 

    And now I'm going for a Cornetto. I'm not going to stop it and you're all welcome to sit back and watch it happen. 
    I make Jeremy Paxman look like Fingermouse. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • hywelghywelg Frets: 1514
    edited May 31
    ICBM said:
    hywelg said:

    with our Labour created debt we are in no position to go borrowing to spend on public services. 
    Labour didn’t create the debt.

    Yes they did. GB was always spending on the basis that it would be paid for from the proceeds of growth. The usual Labour inability to understand the difference between spending and investment. 

    So when it all went tits up we were spending way more than we had coming in resulting in the 'theres no money' note left by the outgoing treasury minister.

    If the Conservatives had cut spending right back to balance the books then it would have been disastrous shock for the economy and huge loss of confidence. So whilst spending has been curtailed (so called "austerity", which is actually just living within our means) by degrees,  the debt has grown but at an ever slower rate. Of course the Conservatives don't get any credit for this, just brickbats from left wing types who think we need to tax more and spend our way out of debt.

    Corbyn will only make matters worse by taxing the rich and spending on his core vote, public servants. I'm quite looking forward to it, it will be interesting, if a little expensive for everyone on more than minimum wage which I'm not unhappy about, we need to pay more for the NHS, but I fear there will be a lot of money scattered on barmy ideological projects. 
    3reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • HeartfeltdawnHeartfeltdawn Frets: 11037
    hywelg said:

    Corbyn will only make matters worse by taxing the rich and spending on his core vote, public servants. I'm quite looking forward to it, it will be interesting, if a little expensive for everyone on more than minimum wage which I'm not unhappy about, we need to pay more for the NHS, but I fear there will be a lot of money scattered on barmy ideological projects. 
    There might not be much money left to scatter around after that large barmy ideological Brexit project...

     
    I make Jeremy Paxman look like Fingermouse. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • marantz1300marantz1300 Frets: 1470
    edited May 31

    It's funny that the cuts only hurt the poor and yet the rich prosper at the exact same time.

    do you think this could be linked ?

    8 years of austerity and more billionaires then ever.



    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • hywelghywelg Frets: 1514
    hywelg said:

    Corbyn will only make matters worse by taxing the rich and spending on his core vote, public servants. I'm quite looking forward to it, it will be interesting, if a little expensive for everyone on more than minimum wage which I'm not unhappy about, we need to pay more for the NHS, but I fear there will be a lot of money scattered on barmy ideological projects. 
    There might not be much money left to scatter around after that large barmy ideological Brexit project...

     
    Corbyn (or at least Macdonald) needs brexit for them to be able to implement some of their more left of centre ideas. And besides you can't put a price on democracy. It willhurt for a while but it will be worth it to be rid of the bureaucrats who run the EU.
    2reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • HeartfeltdawnHeartfeltdawn Frets: 11037
    hywelg said:
    Corbyn (or at least Macdonald) needs brexit for them to be able to implement some of their more left of centre ideas. And besides you can't put a price on democracy. It willhurt for a while but it will be worth it to be rid of the bureaucrats who run the EU.
    Time will tell. But less European meddling in our democracy doesn't pay the rent. 
    I make Jeremy Paxman look like Fingermouse. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • ICBMICBM Frets: 31601
    edited May 31
    I'm going to post this again because some people here have still not read it and/or understood it.

    http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/03/13/the-conservatives-have-been-the-biggest-borrowers-over-the-last-70-years/

    This is based on the official government figures over the last seventy years.

    It's absolutely clear and unequivocal that it's the Tories who are the party of over-borrowing and failing to repay it, not Labour.

    The only two governments ever to leave office with a surplus were Labour - and the two most left-wing at that.

    Not only that, since WWII the Tories have caused more, and deeper, recessions than Labour by three to one, or five to two depending on whether you count two minor brief recessions - and that's even if you give Osborne the benefit of the doubt as to whether his recession was a new one or a continuation of Brown's.

    While it is true that Brown blotted Labour's copybook in a spectacular manner and that it's not entirely Osborne's fault that the Tories had to borrow so much, that's the *only* major economic downturn which is attributable to Labour. And when given an opportunity to undo some of the damage as the economy finally started to recover after the last recession, did Osborne choose to increase public investment, or pay down the debt? Neither - he cut taxes for the better-off... Tory economics in a nutshell, and why they always screw things up.

    But the laughable idea that the Tories are the party of economic competence just goes on being repeated and repeated... and people believe it. Why?
    "Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone."
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 4reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • marantz1300marantz1300 Frets: 1470
    because they are brainwashed fools or it suits them in that they are the rich beneficiary's.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • ICBMICBM Frets: 31601
    because they are brainwashed fools or it suits them in that they are the rich beneficiary's.
    They're taken in by the bribery of 'lower taxes', even though the evidence is clear that it makes us all (apart from the minority at the top) poorer in the long run.

    The bizarre thing is that the idea that Labour overspends and doesn't pay for it is so ingrained that even most Labour supporters don't realise it's false - and the Labour Party themselves don't even seem to challenge it properly, almost as if it would damage their credibility to state the truth. It's as if Margaret Thatcher's jibe about socialists and other people's money has become accepted as a fact - whereas in reality the opposite is true.

    Just as anyone trying to rubbish Corbyn always seems to harp on about 'the Labour governments of the 1970s' - whereas in fact there was only one, and it was only in power for half the decade. The other five years were Tory, and the real damage was done in the first four under Heath... conveniently forgotten now - there are even people who think the three-day week was introduced by Labour.
    "Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone."
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • hywelghywelg Frets: 1514
    hywelg said:
    Corbyn (or at least Macdonald) needs brexit for them to be able to implement some of their more left of centre ideas. And besides you can't put a price on democracy. It willhurt for a while but it will be worth it to be rid of the bureaucrats who run the EU.
    Time will tell. But less European meddling in our democracy doesn't pay the rent. 
    No, but at least we won't have to pay Polands', Greeces', Portugals', Spains' rent.
    1reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • hywelghywelg Frets: 1514
    ICBM said:
    I'm going to post this again because some people here have still not read it and/or understood it.

    http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/03/13/the-conservatives-have-been-the-biggest-borrowers-over-the-last-70-years/



    Well I read it  and its overly simplistic and ignores the fact that the economic cycle does not coincide with the politcal cycle. Debt to GDP for example is hugely distorted by inflation. Current deficits are as a direct result of GB's letting 'prudence'  go to the wall. Conservative governments, especially in 2010 are left with little choice to borrow. Similarly 1979, Margaret (and lets also observe that anyone callling her Maggie Thatcher probably has an axe to grind) Thatcher had a long term plan to defeat the unions, and we should be very thankful that today we live in a society that is no longer controlled by what some bolshie union rep decides is good for his members.
    2reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • ICBMICBM Frets: 31601
    hywelg said:

    Well I read it  and its overly simplistic and ignores the fact that the economic cycle does not coincide with the politcal cycle. Debt to GDP for example is hugely distorted by inflation.
    That’s addressed in the article.

    It’s not overly simplistic - it’s entirely accurate. The simple fact is that overall, Labour has borrowed less and repaid  more than the Tories, totally contrary to popular belief - regardless of whether you look at the values of the time or adjust for inflation.

    hywelg said:

    Current deficits are as a direct result of GB's letting 'prudence'  go to the wall.
    I don’t disagree with that. But Osborne made the problem worse with ‘austerity’ 
    and then cutting taxes, when he should have been increasing them to pay down the debt.

    hywelg said:

    Similarly 1979, Margaret (and lets also observe that anyone callling her Maggie Thatcher probably has an axe to grind) Thatcher had a long term plan to defeat the unions, and we should be very thankful that today we live in a society that is no longer controlled by what some bolshie union rep decides is good for his members. 
    I don’t disagree with that either - but in the process of destroying the militant unions, she caused an immense amount of damage. One of the recessions the Tories caused started almost immediately after her policies began to take effect...


    "Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone."
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 3reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • HeartfeltdawnHeartfeltdawn Frets: 11037
    hywelg said:

    Similarly 1979, Margaret (and lets also observe that anyone callling her Maggie Thatcher probably has an axe to grind) Thatcher had a long term plan to defeat the unions, and we should be very thankful that today we live in a society that is no longer controlled by what some bolshie union rep decides is good for his members.
    Instead we have society controlled by what senior executives decides are good for their shareholders.

    Also let's observe anyone using phrases like 'bolshie union rep' definitely has an axe to grind. 
    I make Jeremy Paxman look like Fingermouse. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • hywelghywelg Frets: 1514
    ICBM said:
    hywelg said:

    Well I read it  and its overly simplistic and ignores the fact that the economic cycle does not coincide with the politcal cycle. Debt to GDP for example is hugely distorted by inflation.
    That’s addressed in the article.

    It’s not overly simplistic - it’s entirely accurate. The simple fact is that overall, Labour has borrowed less and repaid  more than the Tories, totally contrary to popular belief - regardless of whether you look at the values of the time or adjust for inflation.

    You want to beleive that so you only see what you want. If the politcal cycle was shifted 5 years forwards I'll bet ther'd be a very different slant on those figures. Incoming governments always have the benefit/detriment of the previous governments policies to deal with. Apart from possibly Thatcher who was dealing with a different legacy, Labours inability to modernise because of being in hock to the unions.

    ICBM said:

    hywelg said:

    Current deficits are as a direct result of GB's letting 'prudence'  go to the wall.
    I don’t disagree with that. But Osborne made the problem worse with ‘austerity’ 
    and then cutting taxes, when he should have been increasing them to pay down the debt.


    Osborne simply set about reducing spending. You dont deal with a huge debt and deficit by spending more. And yes he did cut 'taxes' but then you should also know, and Corbynite Labour still don't, Wilson and Callaghan never did, that reducing the right 'taxes' result in increased tax take. Taxing the rich, because it looks and feels good to your supporters will likely produce the result that you are poorer because those that can will make different decisions based on that tax regime.

    ICBM said:

    hywelg said:

    Similarly 1979, Margaret (and lets also observe that anyone callling her Maggie Thatcher probably has an axe to grind) Thatcher had a long term plan to defeat the unions, and we should be very thankful that today we live in a society that is no longer controlled by what some bolshie union rep decides is good for his members. 
    I don’t disagree with that either - but in the process of destroying the militant unions, she caused an immense amount of damage. One of the recessions the Tories caused started almost immediately after her policies began to take effect...

    You're too young to remember what it was like when Thatcher came to power. The Nationalised industries were run for the benefit of the employees.Thatcher knew we needed to be competetive and that manufacturing wasn't. And in order to be be competetive we needed to open ourselves to competition. So , manufacturing, subsidised by government support for energy prices through the coal industry and restrictions on coal imports, was uncompetetive and it suffered a hit. Unemployment went up and government borrowing likewise to pay benefits. It was painful but it was NOT brought about by Thatcher, it was a direct result of the post war labour governments inability/unwillingness to remove Union influence from decison making in the best interests of the country, so the Unions thought they had a right to influence policy, culminating in Scargill attempting to overturn democracy and have 100,000 miners dictate economic policy for the whole country.  Darwinian capitalism at work. Thats why you can buy a f*** off big telly for £300.

    2reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • marantz1300marantz1300 Frets: 1470

    and have cradle to grave unemployment in parts of the country.

    Lets turn the clocks back to the 19th century. Those were wonderful days for the rich and a nightmare for the poor.

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • HeartfeltdawnHeartfeltdawn Frets: 11037
    edited June 1
    Double posterino
     
    I make Jeremy Paxman look like Fingermouse. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • HeartfeltdawnHeartfeltdawn Frets: 11037
    hywelg said:
    You're too young to remember what it was like when Thatcher came to power. The Nationalised industries were run for the benefit of the employees.Thatcher knew we needed to be competetive and that manufacturing wasn't. And in order to be be competetive we needed to open ourselves to competition. So , manufacturing, subsidised by government support for energy prices through the coal industry and restrictions on coal imports, was uncompetetive and it suffered a hit. Unemployment went up and government borrowing likewise to pay benefits. It was painful but it was NOT brought about by Thatcher, it was a direct result of the post war labour governments inability/unwillingness to remove Union influence from decison making in the best interests of the country, so the Unions thought they had a right to influence policy, culminating in Scargill attempting to overturn democracy and have 100,000 miners dictate economic policy for the whole country.  Darwinian capitalism at work. Thats why you can buy a f*** off big telly for £300.



    I wasn't around for the Mesozoic period but I can still research and write about it. 


    'We needed to open ourselves to competition' - I believe that recent thread involving a discussion of Britain's online capabilities and how Thatcher fucked that up should now be referenced. 

    And if 100,000 miners shouldn't dictate policy for the country, neither should think tanks created by Kiwis with Maltese citizenship and a Russian money trail. 

    https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/peter-geoghegan/legatum-breached-charity-regulations-with-brexit-work-charity-commission-finds



     
    I make Jeremy Paxman look like Fingermouse. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • marantz1300marantz1300 Frets: 1470
    or a bunch of eatonians who are only concerned with the wealthy whilst dispising the poor
    1reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • ICBMICBM Frets: 31601
    hywelg said:

    You want to beleive that so you only see what you want. If the politcal cycle was shifted 5 years forwards I'll bet ther'd be a very different slant on those figures.
    The facts are what they are, and the pattern is entirely consistent over that whole 70-year period regardless of ‘economic cycles’. The Tories borrow more and repay less - fact, not slant.

    hywelg said:

    Incoming governments always have the benefit/detriment of the previous governments policies to deal with.
    So how did the Tories turn the only two surpluses left by any departing government - both Labour governments - into deficits?

    And how did they create a deep recession in the early 90s after they'd been in power for more than ten years? You can't blame that on Labour, or even worldwide conditions like you partly could for Heath's recession or Brown's.

    I would accept that Brown inherited an improving economy left by Ken Clarke, but that's the only time it's been that way round.

    hywelg said:

    Osborne simply set about reducing spending. You dont deal with a huge debt and deficit by spending more. And yes he did cut 'taxes' but then you should also know, and Corbynite Labour still don't, Wilson and Callaghan never did, that reducing the right 'taxes' result in increased tax take. Taxing the rich, because it looks and feels good to your supporters will likely produce the result that you are poorer because those that can will make different decisions based on that tax regime.
    I never said increase spending. I said he should have increased taxes - across the board. There is no other way of balancing the books. Instead, he cut essential spending for the least well-off and *lowered* taxes for the better-off rather than reduce the deficit faster. Because that’s what the Tories always do...

    hywelg said:

    You're too young to remember what it was like when Thatcher came to power. The Nationalised industries were run for the benefit of the employees.Thatcher knew we needed to be competetive and that manufacturing wasn't. And in order to be be competetive we needed to open ourselves to competition.
    Actually I do know what it was like. My father ran an engineering company at the time. He voted for Thatcher in ‘79 because he knew what a problem the unions had become, and has regretted it ever since - her policies destroyed British manufacturing industry. That’s why we are now largely a credit-driven, low-wage service economy and will find it very hard to ever pay our way in the world again - especially as almost anything valuable we once owned has been privatised and sold off to the highest (usually foreign) bidder in the name of 'competition', which is often false anyway.

    The Thatcherite dogma of the last forty years - largely continued by New Labour - has now come home to roost. That's why we have unheard-of levels of peacetime debt and why the interest on it is now the fourth largest single item of government spending, which is an utter waste of money which should be used for public services. The only real beneficiaries are those at the top... surprise surprise.
    "Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone."
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 6reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • marantz1300marantz1300 Frets: 1470
    super wiz for that
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • BoromedicBoromedic Frets: 761
    edited June 3
    ICBM quotes the facts and you argue he is only seeing what he wants to see, yet actually I read it the same way. Therefore are you the one actually seeing what you want you to see hywelg? It's simple facts and you can see the patterns, ICBM pops this up each time this discussion crops up, and people try and argue the point.

    Heartfeltdawn is also right that you clearly have an axe to grind against unions. Unions who let's face it, did some utterly ridiculous stuff at that time, but they also did a lot of good and helped to gain ordinary working class people some decent employment rights. The same rights that are now under threat of being removed by big business and the ridiculous gig economy.

    I take it you aren't from an area destroyed by Thatcher's illegal war on the miners hywelg? (Apologies if I'm incorrect in that assumption.) Using MI5 and military personnel to destroy them, not too mention an all too compliant media. I don't dispute they needed to do something to stop the unions who had too much power, but she went too far in revenge for Heath's government being destroyed by them. (Edit: just noticed who your MP is so I figured you live the people's republic of Rushcliffe, explains a bit, close enough to see some of the damage she inflicted but far enough away not to worry.)

    Both mine and my best friends Dad's worked in ordinary, industrial, working class jobs in the North East, and the stories they tell about the unions are utterly eye watering, they were in many ways masters of their own downfall in that regard. (Calling wildcat strikes on dubious grounds so they could have a POETs day on Friday for instance) They certainly had no love for them. However both of them ended up on the dole thanks to her, my Dad for a few years infact and he was a right grafter but there was simply nothing around. He would cycle round various yards and industrial sites everyday asking for work, and he had a decent electrical engineering CV, but there was absolutely zilch available. Then when my Dad tried to get state help he got next to nothing and was nearly jailed doing cash in hand work to support his family. Thanks for that Maggie, you legend. If it wasn't for a lot of EU cash, the areas around Boro would still be some Mad Max industrial wasteland in fact, because she never lifted a finger to help the communities she destroyed. 

    All of the home to roost stuff above is also an example of how messed up it all is now thanks to her and Tony's cronyism and policies. Short term gain for the individuals (especially themselves or their mates), and pain for everyone else.

    .....and what to my wondering eyes should appear.....      nothing.......


    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 3reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • mbembe Frets: 560
    "Maggie, Maggie, Maggie This Maggie Thatcher." sung to a rousing accompaniment of grinding axes.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • BoromedicBoromedic Frets: 761
    Unfortunately that's just the way it will always be for me. Ruined a lot of lives and profited from it too, the only people who say how great she was as a PM were the people who never lived in or near an area she destroyed then ignored.

    .....and what to my wondering eyes should appear.....      nothing.......


    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 3reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • ChalkyChalky Frets: 5343
    Ever noticed how those who are very left wing or very right wing both insist on living in the past?
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • ICBMICBM Frets: 31601
    Chalky said:
    Ever noticed how those who are very left wing or very right wing both insist on living in the past?
    I’d prefer not to repeat the past. Failing to learn from it makes repeating it more likely.
    "Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone."
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.