View Full Version : talking of politics - margaret thatcher
this could be a decent debate....
or could fizzle out into nothing......
what are your opinions on the lady?
any other options i could add?
Carsick
05-04-05, 11:36 AM
All of the above, from what I can piece together.
Of course, I was pretty young at the time. I just about remember Major coming into power then actually winning an election, though.
She done some good things, she done some bad things, but one thing is for sure, she was no puppet. I suppose that i was a bit too young to understand it all, but i realy think that we need someone in power like her again. Its seems that polititians in this country have gone soft. Love him or hate him, Ken is about the only person to stand up for what he believes in nowadays, and for that, ill give him the clap he deserves.
Bring back Maggie :shock: :lol:
Nutkins
05-04-05, 11:38 AM
Great, Fantastic ..... Spitting Image would never had been the same without her.
She didn't suffer fools, which is so surprising considering that most of her cabinet were.
She gave more people a chance to own tier own home with right to buy, which the labout government have now taken away. She wouldnt have even batterred an eye lid over Iraq. 1st off she had a better team of advisors and would have been more sure, but at the end of the day, she would have gone in and sod the consequences. on the other hand, interest rates went through the roof, unemployment was high. I truly dont think that you can have it both ways.
She was a true historic leader, the kind that only comes along every so often, and one i am sure that the conservitives miss. They have never really had any direction since she left. William hauge was and still is an excellent speaker, but as a leader he wasnt that much cop.
Maggie would have also walked all over bush and made him look like the fool he is. In reality i dont see that there are any real leaders that stand out for the right reasons in this world any more, and its turned into a bizzare world of countries run by muppets.
For the record, i voted labour last time round...this time, havent a clue to be honest.
saw a documentary on her on sky the other day, its what prompted me to ask. spot on , no she didnt suffer fools. there was a press conference, a photo call, of all the european leaders at some summit. maggie pushed her way to the front, making sure she was front and centre. precisely the opposite of what Major was like. he'd have stood at the back, doing very little!
she had biggers balls than most! didnt back down, even when she was wrong.
Hohbein
05-04-05, 11:50 AM
anyone that brings the SAS into a prison riot has my thumbs up
. on the other hand, interest rates went through the roof, unemployment was high. I truly dont think that you can have it both ways.
wasnt unemployment at 3 mill when she took over? correct me if im wrong
Probably the best leader out of the last three PM's.
I have never liked president Blair at all.
. on the other hand, interest rates went through the roof, unemployment was high. I truly dont think that you can have it both ways.
wasnt unemployment at 3 mill when she took over? correct me if im wrong
I thought that was whilst she was in power. I was young as i said so may be wrong..as always?
Nutkins
05-04-05, 11:56 AM
wasnt unemployment at 3 mill when she took over? correct me if im wrong
I know .... there was some lazy *******s out there. Would've been anyway, whoever was in power.
as viney said, she did some good things and some bad things.... the latter being the things that affected me and my family the most so during the 80s I disagreed with most of what she did and was very staunch anti-conservative.
However, since labour have been elected Ive found them to have sold out on all their original principals and let people like me and my family down.
In light of that, for the first time ever in my life Id vote conservative - the liberals have fecked up big time down here and I think once more Kent will go Tory at the next election... personally for me... the tories are a better option... and thats something I grew up thinking Id never say...
but tbh... theres no difference between any of them... everyones central and fence sitting and Im now completely apathetic about the whole thing... its interesting that in Australia... you HAVE to vote... you can not not vote or your fined....
Now I look back and as much as I disagree with her policies - I see the self orientated culture her policies introduced a bad thing and a reason why our society is in a bad way - I wish we had a leader as strong as her and with the convictions she had. There wouldnt be any wishy washy change with the wind stuff we have now...
SVeeedy Gonzales
05-04-05, 01:41 PM
Fair do's, she did exactly what she wanted to do, without pandering to everyone and everything like Blair does...
But she wrecked the country. See all that lack of concern in the people out there for each other? All that "I'm all right Jack" attitude? All that money that rich f@ckers pay themselves while people doing the real work get screwed?
Most of that started with Thatcher... and it's still going downhill at the moment :evil: Too many people going around thinking they're better/more important than other people and don't have to accept responsibility for their actions.
In short, Thatcher IS "Sorry mate, I didn't see you" personified. :evil:
you have to vote in Aus? there's a can of worms.
its good that it forces people to vote, but
people could just check ANY box, vote for anybody. cos they like their name, summat like that
they could vote for somebody they havent the slightest idea on their policies etc ok they could take the time to find out more.....but it raises more problems than it solves.
probably.
people could just check ANY box, vote for anybody. cos they like their name, summat like that
And thats wrong..how? :wink:
people could just check ANY box, vote for anybody. cos they like their name, summat like that
And thats wrong..how? :wink:
:lol: :lol: :lol: good point well argued!
Carsick
05-04-05, 02:04 PM
people could just check ANY box, vote for anybody. cos they like their name, summat like that
And thats wrong..how? :wink:
Indeed.
That doesn't happen as much here because the people who want to vote properly are the ones that go down and do it. In a country where voting is compulsory, then yes, for a while you might get alot of less well though out votes, but after a while people will vote properly. The reason? They're voting anyway, so when they get fed up of their crap leaders, something will be done.
Nutkins
05-04-05, 02:04 PM
I like Aussie politicians, they are openly corruptable and they call a spade a spade. When I was last out there, I listened to a radio interview with one of their MPs, talking about the unions etc. (boring ZZZzzzz), he referred to the leader of the trade union as a "****ing ******" ...... I PMSL .... the Australians didn't bat an eyelid.
Love 'em.
Flamin_Squirrel
05-04-05, 02:18 PM
Fair do's, she did exactly what she wanted to do, without pandering to everyone and everything like Blair does...
But she wrecked the country. See all that lack of concern in the people out there for each other? All that "I'm all right Jack" attitude? All that money that rich f@ckers pay themselves while people doing the real work get screwed?
Most of that started with Thatcher... and it's still going downhill at the moment :evil: Too many people going around thinking they're better/more important than other people and don't have to accept responsibility for their actions.
In short, Thatcher IS "Sorry mate, I didn't see you" personified. :evil:
Disagree.
The last 8 years has seen Labour institute a nanny state of massive proportion. Personal responsibility is at an all time low, but is it any wonder when government now interferes with every last aspect of every day life? If you remove freedom of choice it seems perfectly obvious that the apathy that now consumes the general populace would result.
Social security is currently this countries biggest expenditure. That's just wrong, especialy when unemployment is so low (not least because of an influx of worthless public sector jobs). I bet all that money is going to people who really need it :roll:
SVeeedy Gonzales
05-04-05, 02:44 PM
I'm not saying Blair and Co are any better, just that Thatcher gave it a good start... it wasn't all roses before she came in but she started something bad when she tried to make things better.
Personally I think they're all useless - mostly out for themselves and making as much as they can by having the power... that's what happens when people can't be held responsible for their own actions, just as happens in big business.
It's easy to see the past with rose tinted specs; social security and a host of other things weren't exactly wonderful under Thatcher - can still recall the same stories about single mums getting free houses and rubbish NHS and awful train services... none of this is new.
However, it's getting worse and that's because politicians have adopted Thatcher's preferred methods - getting private companies and consultants in to solve problems... then they just go and arrive at whatever conclusion makes them the most money, hence speed cameras, etc.
Way I see it, Blair is just carrying on Thatchers good work.
northwind
05-04-05, 05:35 PM
She gave more people a chance to own tier own home with right to buy, which the labout government have now taken away.
Can i rephrase that for you? She introduced the right to buy council houses at absurdly low prices simply to create a short-term cash-inflow, but made no plans at all to replace council house stock, leaving terrible problems for future governments... And lo and behold many council house tenants bought their council houses cheap and sold them for crazy profits a year later.
Couerdelion
05-04-05, 06:15 PM
Ken is about the only person to stand up for what he believes in nowadays, and for that, ill give him the clap he deserves.
What you infect people with is your own business but this is a highly intellectual conversation about politics :shock:
are any of you old enough to remember her in power,because i do :(
She gave more people a chance to own tier own home with right to buy, which the labout government have now taken away.
Can i rephrase that for you? She introduced the right to buy council houses at absurdly low prices simply to create a short-term cash-inflow, but made no plans at all to replace council house stock, leaving terrible problems for future governments... And lo and behold many council house tenants bought their council houses cheap and sold them for crazy profits a year later.
my thoughts exactly
I liked Maggie - I'm not saying I liked all her policies, that I liked her as a politician or Conservative, or even that I liked her choice of handbags... but I sure as hell respected her as a leader.
She really believed in this country, and in doing so she stood up for it on the world stage. Yes she was married to Reagan - but we all know who wore the trousers in that relationship.
She didn't take any ****, and if she believed she was right she stood by her guns. Her problem was not learning or accepting when she was wrong.
Considering the size of the UK we weild a disproportionate amount of power in the world, mostly thanks to the Victorians and their glorious (ahem!) Empire and our position in history as the ones who stalled Hitler. Maggie did alot to maintain that level of 'bark bigger than bite' which we have since lost at an amazing rate.
Whether we deserved such a level of power in the first place is a whole different topic.
In my opinion the only other politician who has gained the same level of respect from me was Paddy Ashdown - again not for his policies or party affiliations - but the man was in the goddamn S.B.S.! Someone who was willing, and did, put his life on the line for this country.
Despite all that though - I never voted for either of them.
It's unlikely I'll vote in the coming general election, haven't so far and there's been no one yet who has convinced me to otherwise exercise my rather precious right to vote.
I refuse to vote for the best of a bad bunch - and if I we had the same laws regarding this as the Australians, it's a principle I'd gladly be fined or go to jail for.
SVeeedy Gonzales
05-04-05, 08:16 PM
I'll give you that - a great leader... look at her handling of the falklands... most other modern leaders would have buckled over something like that, like with the Iraq/Afghanistan/<insert name of any suspicious country in the eyes of the USA here> scenarios. If she'd been running the show from the US when Vietnam was on, they'd either have won by now or still be out there fighting.
Sadly a powerful leader isn't always best for the Country... look at Churchill - great in WW2 but no use after it (really showing my age now :shock: )... some are better at fighting and smacking people (including their own) about, others are better for steady, beneficial improvement of the Country. Thatcher was the first type... can't fail to be impressed at how much she did, just not too pleased with where we've ended up now :(
timwilky
05-04-05, 09:36 PM
She gave more people a chance to own tier own home with right to buy, which the labout government have now taken away.
Can i rephrase that for you? She introduced the right to buy council houses at absurdly low prices simply to create a short-term cash-inflow, but made no plans at all to replace council house stock, leaving terrible problems for future governments... And lo and behold many council house tenants bought their council houses cheap and sold them for crazy profits a year later.
Why should councils provide cheap housing for the lazy scum who will not get off their backsides to do a days work. Councils exist to provide necassary services to their rate payers not subsidise their supporters. or create jobs for them.
Privatise the lot. and then I will choose what services I want and from whom.
northwind
05-04-05, 10:03 PM
Maybe 'cus often those "lazy scum" are in a job but can't afford or obtain a place of their own for different reasons, or are unable to get work themselves, or because they have kids who you can't put on the street for the sins of their parents? Or because people with no fixed abode otherwise can find it basically impossible to get back into the "real world"- try applying for a job when your address is a homeless shelter...
I agree with you where long-term occupation's concerned, but the reality is most council housing isn't used for long-term occupancy. Council houses offer a first step back on the ladder for those who need it most.
Do you read the Daily Mail? Do you write for it? :)
Can i rephrase that for you? She introduced the right to buy council houses at absurdly low prices simply to create a short-term cash-inflow, but made no plans at all to replace council house stock, leaving terrible problems for future governments... And lo and behold many council house tenants bought their council houses cheap and sold them for crazy profits a year later.
But councils weren't allowed to spend the money and as far as I know, they still aren't. There was a shortfall in public sector housing, this was largely filled by private sector stuff, and she changed the law to introduce assured shorthold tenancies so as to ensure that landlords weren't saddled with tenants they couldn't get rid of and that lenders would lend on these properties. Rent? - paid by the DSS.
I wish Lady thatcher were standing now, I'd have no hesitation in voting for her - because she passionately cared about the country, not just about herself and her place in history.
Carsick
05-04-05, 10:27 PM
I wish Lady thatcher were standing now, I'd have no hesitation in voting for her - because she passionately cared about the country, not just about herself and her place in history.
I definitely wouldn't vote for her now.
Not just because I don't think she's what we need, but mostly because she's a very dotty old biddy.
northwind
05-04-05, 10:28 PM
This is my point... She took a short-term bonus and saddled us with a greater long-term expense. Council or government taxes all come out of the same pockets, so whether it's the DSS or the council that's paying, all I care about is that they're paying more.
I've got a huge respect for her as a person, mind... She achieved some very impressive things. But I can't abide her politics.
Fair do's, she did exactly what she wanted to do, without pandering to everyone and everything like Blair does...
But she wrecked the country. See all that lack of concern in the people out there for each other? All that "I'm all right Jack" attitude? All that money that rich f@ckers pay themselves while people doing the real work get screwed?
Most of that started with Thatcher... and it's still going downhill at the moment :evil: Too many people going around thinking they're better/more important than other people and don't have to accept responsibility for their actions.
In short, Thatcher IS "Sorry mate, I didn't see you" personified. :evil:
Disagree.
The last 8 years has seen Labour institute a nanny state of massive proportion. Personal responsibility is at an all time low, but is it any wonder when government now interferes with every last aspect of every day life? If you remove freedom of choice it seems perfectly obvious that the apathy that now consumes the general populace would result.
Social security is currently this countries biggest expenditure. That's just wrong, especialy when unemployment is so low (not least because of an influx of worthless public sector jobs). I bet all that money is going to people who really need it :roll:
SPOT ON!!! :notworthy:
Can I just add that current jobs in britain are ****e. Most are public sector. Labour has destroyed industry where jobs are currently being lost in 1000's every year. These are real jobs which are productive rather than paper-pushing.
As a teacher I am supposed to tell kids there is a world of opportunity out there and it's bollicks. Call centres, supermarkets and civy workers for the North East.
When Maggy was in power I was 2 years old. I know she stopped free milk in schools. I also know that labour blaim the tories for much of today's problems, yet in 7-8 years they've done nothing to solve such.
Today we live in a false economy based on borrow and spend. This is fuelled by low interest-rates. If these interest-rates were to rise this country would be ****ed with a capital f. When the tories get in it'll no-doubt happen, and they'll be the ones to take the blame for labour policies.
What really annoys me more than anything else is responsibility. We are no longer responsible for our actions. If a kid misbehaves they are labeled as having a medical condition and fed some ritilin.
northwind
05-04-05, 11:17 PM
Right, hang on a second. Most jobs are public sector? You must know that's rubbish, surely? Second, Labour destroyed industry in the UK? it's been in decline for a very long time.
Well... we all have to take the thick with the thin etc. However, my general appreciation of the history surrounding her reign is that she grabbed this country by the scruff of it's neck, slapped it around the face, and dragged it out of the ****.
Yes a few people suffered... but generally speaking, those that suffered, were the trade unions holding the country to ransom with 3 day weeks that shafted everyone else.
Oh, and now Labour are in power - Tube strike anyone? No we can't afford to pay you more than the £36k you now earn, because we ****ed £900 million into PFI! :evil:
Right, hang on a second. Most jobs are public sector? You must know that's rubbish, surely? Second, Labour destroyed industry in the UK? it's been in decline for a very long time.
1. bigger issue in the north east then anywhere else.
2. people are supposed to be productive which is why more and more are unhappy with life and jobs.
Two more interesting topics:
1. The Lib Dems are in favour of giving prisoners the right to vote.
2. Should there be an intelligence test before being able to vote?
Flamin_Squirrel
06-04-05, 09:58 AM
2. Should there be an intelligence test before being able to vote?
Plently of smart people are politicaly ignorant, so I'm not sure if that would help.
Back in the day you could only vote if you were a land owner, so only those who had responisibility could influence government, and those who didn't had something to aspire to.
Maybe something along the lines of an indervidual or their spouse must be employed before they can vote would be an answer. Unfortunately anything to do with restricting voting rights will never happen as it would risk alienating people.
.....our position in history as the ones who stalled Hitler.
I believe the Russians had something to do with it.
(no offence) :wink:
Nick762
06-04-05, 11:26 AM
I'd love to see compulsory voting but only as long as there's an abstention box. You have the ludicrous situation where the turnout in the last election was something like 65% (or was it less?) which at a rough guess means that only about one third of the total electorate voted for the ruling party. The rest either didn't vote or voted for someone else ergo two thirds of the electorate are potentially not in favour of the government. What sort of a franchise is that?
Compulsory voting would at least serve to remind politicians (and didn't Shakespeare use that term an insult?) of the true weight of public opinion and that while they may have a majority in the "House", they may not have a similar majority in the country.
So far as Margaret Thatcher goes, anyone who remembers the 70's will understand what a mess the country was in. Industrial action had replaced cricket as the national sport, the economy was being subsidised by the IMF, unemployment was rocketing and the unions were too powerful. Our working practices belonged in the stone age and were strangling any ability to compete with heavy industry and manufacturing from new producers in the far east.
You had nationalised car makers, nationalised ship building, nationalised steel production, all of which were bureauocratic in the extreme and riddled with inefficiency. Anyone here drive a 1970's British Leyland car? Not many still around are there.
Heavy industry in the UK was on its last legs regardless of what the unions and government were trying to pretend. What message is given out when it's less expensive to build a car and ship it half way round the world than to buy a locally made one of often inferior quality?
What Thatcher did was to take the country by the scruff of its neck and drag it into the 20th century giving employers the opportunity to run their businesses on a competitive basis. The other option would have been to continue to subsidise failing industries at a cost of billions to the public purse. Of course if your country is not producing goods that anyone wants to buy, that purse is soon going to be empty and your country bankrupt.
On the other hand, I feel that she went to far with the rabid denationalisation programmes. While the government has no business selling cars, I believe that it most definately needed to retain tight control of roads, rail, utilities and anything else upon which the public depend. While the public sector may still have much to learn from the private sector particulalry with regards to efficient management, service must come before profit.
One final note, if she had not been stabbed in the back I'm pretty sure that Margaret Thatcher would have put some steel into George Bush senior's spine and made sure that Saddam was finished off properly the first time round instead of leaving the mess we're dealing with today.
Nick762
06-04-05, 11:51 AM
.....our position in history as the ones who stalled Hitler.
I believe the Russians had something to do with it.
(no offence) :wink:
Indeed they did but I like to think that the turning point of World War 2 was the Battle of Britain. If we'd lost that one, there would have been no North African campaign that diverted Axis resources from the eastern front and most certainly no convenient forward base from where the second front that Stalin had been demanding for years could be launched from in 1944. The jury is out as to whether Russia would have eventually won on its own, I'm not sure they "the commies" would have had a lot of support from the US without Britain backing them up.
In 1940, the USSR was still officially neutral and the American press corps was hanging out in the pubs around Dover waiting to see who would be the first one to get an exclusive with Rommel. The Americans were not expecting us to survive and with Britain out of the war I don't know if Hitler would still have declared war on America following Pearl Harbor, personally I suspect that he would have concentrated on finishing off Russia first. It is possible that he would have aided Japan and that German forces been active in the Pacific theatre but the outcome is anyone's guess. Perhaps the Germans would have sent their naval forces who were not much use in Central Asia into the Pacific. It would have been interesting to see how their battleships fared against the US carrier forces. Although the Kreigsmarine had launched a carrier of its own, the "Graf Zepellin", in 1938 it was never comissioned partly because Hitler had lost interest in it and partly because the Luftwaffe resisted. They would I guess have been at a significant disadvantage.
Even allowing for a significant victory by the US over German and Japanese forces, without the base provided by Britain it is unlikely that a military conquest of the German nation would have been possible and that some sort of cold war type accomodation would have been reached.
I am surprised at the results of the poll.
being an old git, I remember britain before thatcher, under both tory and labour administrations. Both were abysmal - I especially remember the 3 day week in the 1970s and scraping a living - it was difficult to buy decent transport, let alone a house.
Thatcher changed all that. She was also absolutely honest about what she wanted to do - and i do like that in a politician
I'm no fan of Tony Blair and never have been.
I'm no fan of Howard or Kennedy either - so I'll just vote for my local MP, who works hard for his community. Not voting is not an option.
2. Should there be an intelligence test before being able to vote?
Plently of smart people are politicaly ignorant, so I'm not sure if that would help.
I'd love to see this, cos if they based in on most intelligence/IQ tests I'd have a field day!
I am ashamed to say I have and average (from a variety of test scores) IQ of 172. Apparently that means I'm a bona fide genius... personally I think it means IQ tests a joke. :wink:
I do like the idea of tying your status as an employed member of British society into your right to vote if you wish.
I would strong defy, protest and actively kick up a stink about being made to vote unless there was an option on the ballot paper for abstension.
Various people, to whom I am grateful, fought long and hard for me as a woman. Not to have the right to vote, but to have the right to be able to vote. My choice.
.....our position in history as the ones who stalled Hitler.
I believe the Russians had something to do with it.
(no offence) :wink:
Indeed they did but... (very informed comments).
Um... wot ee sed! :wink: And very well said it was too.
With a German victory at the Battle of Britain it would have taken Hitler out of the similar situation that Napoleon was in. Taking on the vastness of Russia and the logistical problem's that entails, whilst still securing a second front of sorts at home. Though with Napoleon it was more of a domestic issue than expansion both east and west.
Biker Biggles
06-04-05, 07:57 PM
I remember the 1970s before Thatcher and those awful nationalised industries like British Leyland,Rail,Steel,Shipbuilders,Coal,Gas,Electric and many others.Those were the bad old days when people (especially in the North East Andrew)had real jobs in those industries.Thatcher presided over the wholesale destruction of most of that industrial base or the flogging of it on the cheap often to foreign interests.Its still going on(MG Rover)and our industry is now so emasculated that the French build ships for Cunard and are quite likely to have to build the Navys aircraft carriers.I think she should have been tried for Crimes against British Industry.
timwilky
06-04-05, 09:40 PM
I remember the 1970s before Thatcher and those awful nationalised industries like British Leyland,Rail,Steel,Shipbuilders,Coal,Gas,Electric and many others.Those were the bad old days when people (especially in the North East Andrew)had real jobs in those industries.Thatcher presided over the wholesale destruction of most of that industrial base or the flogging of it on the cheap often to foreign interests.Its still going on(MG Rover)and our industry is now so emasculated that the French build ships for Cunard and are quite likely to have to build the Navys aircraft carriers.I think she should have been tried for Crimes against British Industry.
Hang on there, most of those industries committed suicide. I worked for one of the above in the 70/80s. One of our Scottish plants was being shut down. So the unions in the name of solidarity with their scottish cousins "blacked" any transferred work. I put some "blacked" work onto the shop floor. The guy who was a shop steward refused to do it, was supended. His union walked out. Mine went in sympathy and I was without a salary for 8 weeks. The guy never blamed me as he knew we had both been used. However, we achieved nothing and took a couple of years to recover the money that we had thrown away. The company after I left was taken over by a dutch manufacturer who when they got into trouble was bailed out by their goverment. but no money available to aid the UK company
I now work in a very large engineering firm that again you have referenced above. In 1984 when I started there we had overflowing order books and a "cash mountain" In the last 8 years our market has disappeared and the 5000+ that used to work in our Manchester plant are no more. Our businesses in Preston, Birmingham have all but disappeared. Not from Mrs T legacy, but from a total lack of UK orders, and an unwillingness of the current UK goverment to assist their industries. The French do. and as such then demand that when the company wins large value international orders that they are executed in France.
I'd love to see compulsory voting but only as long as there's an abstention box. You have the ludicrous situation where the turnout in the last election was something like 65% (or was it less?) which at a rough guess means that only about one third of the total electorate voted for the ruling party. The rest either didn't vote or voted for someone else ergo two thirds of the electorate are potentially not in favour of the government. What sort of a franchise is that?
Compulsory voting isn't the answer, it only seeks to mask the symptom and not the problem. The real problem is that vast sections of society regard today's politicians with contempt. There is a generation of people who feel detached from the political process and fail to see it's relevance to them. This is reflected in membership of political parties and voter turnout. It doesn't mean that people don't care or that they don't want their voice to be heard, witness the anti-war demonstrations across the country as evidence of that.
Personally I would favour all elected representatives salaries being linked to voter turnout. Perhaps not the entire solution, but a step in the right direction of encouraging engagement with the electorate.
Flamin_Squirrel
07-04-05, 08:18 AM
Engaging the populace in the political process is what got us stuck with these slimey contemptable 'leaders' in the first place.
Biker Biggles
07-04-05, 07:37 PM
I think me and Timwilky probably agree with each other.I wouldnt defend the lack of support for industry since Thatcher,and I dont claim that all was well before 1979.I do say she was responsible for starting the policies that have got us where we are now.Short term action to balance the books has delivered an economy that looks good but is based on nothing real.The French and Germans have made sure their core industries have remained largely intact and are able to produce real goods and generate wealth.How will we do that when its all gone.At this moment MG Rover is about to go down that same plughole.That would never happen to VW,Renault,Nissan,General Motors or Aprillia,who have all been effectively bankrupt at some stage.Thatcher started the let em rot policies that we still follow.
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.