talking of politics - margaret thatcher

[northwind]

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.

Originally Posted by Flamin_Squirrel

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

SPOT ON!!!

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]

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.

[BillyC]

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!

Originally Posted by northwind

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?

Originally Posted by andrewcharnley

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.

[embee]

Originally Posted by K

.....our position in history as the ones who stalled Hitler.

I believe the Russians had something to do with it.

(no offence)

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.

Originally Posted by embee

I believe the Russians had something to do with it.

(no offence)

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.