28 Jan 10, 10:28 AM
MissP
UK(EN), 8 yrs
 |
nortyboy wrote:
MissP wrote:
nortyboy wrote:
Like i said, avoiding the issues.
Whatever happened to the Poll Tax? lmao....
|
I haven't avoided the issues, you've completely avoided the question. As you're having comprehension problems, here it is again -
MissP wrote:
And yet in 20+ years, how many Thatcher ideals have been overturned by susequent leaders/goverments?? How many policies, EXACTLY, especially the socio-economic ones? I think you'll find it's a round number, beginning and ending in 0.
Not a Thatcher fan by any stretch, but by the goddesses, she's lasted. As have her policies. We are no longer under the rule of the dinosaur unions.
It's easy to knock. Do you have a better and more workable solution?? |
The Poll tax, which replaced a Labour tax anyway, is still in use, albeit under a different name. Labout have not recinded that, or indeed any of Thatcher's other socio-economic policies. Unless you can tell us differently?
We are paying MORE tax now, under Labour, than we ever have. Many of them backdoor taxes unfortunately.
Like her or hate her, Thatcher DID smash the stranglehold the unions had over British industry, and that's had extremelt positive results. I am a current union member, and ex-shop steward, I'm not anti union, but very anti the way they were. She gave them an almighty kick up the arse, which was frankly, long overdue.
Obvioulsy you don't have a better or more workable solution, otherwise you'd have posted it, instead of your rants.
|
Firstly you seem to think the only issue that needed resolving was the relationship with the Trade Unions.
It clearly wasnt . It also could have been done in a different manner. The example of the coalmine i gave you clearly illustrated that. She not only "smashed the Unions" but the manufacturing base of the country creating 3 .6 million people unememployed.
Your original point is that noone has moved away from her socio /economic policies.Thats simply not true.
Section 28, Poll Tax, her obession with privatisation , her complete lack intervention in the Economy all illustrate that. Her approch to inner cities , regional government and affordable housing have all been reversed.Finally she was dumped by her own party partially over her approch to Europe.
So the idea that noone has ever changed her policies as you assert is clearly false. Thats not a rant but historical reality. Thats why you avoid it each time you post.
Your response seems to be based on some Daily Mail rant about reds under the bed and Trade Unions.
You "goddess" Maggie was a friend to Latin American dictators and introduced Section 28 . Hardly things that a woman such as you whose a Trade Unionist and into BDSM should support is it?
I dont really care if you support her but at least be honest about it. suggesting its based on her policies remaining in place because they were effective simply isnt true. Which is why her party dumped her and reversed many of them.
You seem to think
|
No, I didn't think unions were the only issue, I just mentioned it. Again, you are failing to read properly.
She didn't smash the base of anything. Things were simply cheaper from abraod, and still are. Simple economics. Unless you are paying considerably more for British goods - put up and shut up. We all buy at the best price/quality available, because we don't like paying over the odds. That has naff-all to do with Thatcher, it started long before she came into power.
And again, can you tell us, which of her socio-economic policies were reversed, you've failed to in all of your many posts thus far.
You've been told she wasn't dumped, she was re-elected, twice.
All leaders have to go eventually, she had a fairly good innings by anybody's standards.
I have't referred to her as a goddess, YOU have. I really don't need words put in my mouth.
Gordon Brown is very pally with several dictators, Latin American and others. Your point is?? Are you some sort of xenophobe as well as a left wing ranter?
You obviously DO care if I support her, as you can't stop yourself from banging on about it. But she's long gone, and highly unlikely to want to come back at her advanced age, so what she did during her term, is her legacy now. One that subsequent governments, even Labour ones, have stuck with. Like it or not.
www.thedivinemissp.co.uk
|
28 Jan 10, 10:52 AM
nortyboy
UK, 4 yrs
|
MissP wrote:
nortyboy wrote:
MissP wrote:
nortyboy wrote:
Like i said, avoiding the issues.
Whatever happened to the Poll Tax? lmao....
|
I haven't avoided the issues, you've completely avoided the question. As you're having comprehension problems, here it is again -
MissP wrote:
And yet in 20+ years, how many Thatcher ideals have been overturned by susequent leaders/goverments?? How many policies, EXACTLY, especially the socio-economic ones? I think you'll find it's a round number, beginning and ending in 0.
Not a Thatcher fan by any stretch, but by the goddesses, she's lasted. As have her policies. We are no longer under the rule of the dinosaur unions.
It's easy to knock. Do you have a better and more workable solution?? |
The Poll tax, which replaced a Labour tax anyway, is still in use, albeit under a different name. Labout have not recinded that, or indeed any of Thatcher's other socio-economic policies. Unless you can tell us differently?
We are paying MORE tax now, under Labour, than we ever have. Many of them backdoor taxes unfortunately.
Like her or hate her, Thatcher DID smash the stranglehold the unions had over British industry, and that's had extremelt positive results. I am a current union member, and ex-shop steward, I'm not anti union, but very anti the way they were. She gave them an almighty kick up the arse, which was frankly, long overdue.
Obvioulsy you don't have a better or more workable solution, otherwise you'd have posted it, instead of your rants.
|
Firstly you seem to think the only issue that needed resolving was the relationship with the Trade Unions.
It clearly wasnt . It also could have been done in a different manner. The example of the coalmine i gave you clearly illustrated that. She not only "smashed the Unions" but the manufacturing base of the country creating 3 .6 million people unememployed.
Your original point is that noone has moved away from her socio /economic policies.Thats simply not true.
Section 28, Poll Tax, her obession with privatisation , her complete lack intervention in the Economy all illustrate that. Her approch to inner cities , regional government and affordable housing have all been reversed.Finally she was dumped by her own party partially over her approch to Europe.
So the idea that noone has ever changed her policies as you assert is clearly false. Thats not a rant but historical reality. Thats why you avoid it each time you post.
Your response seems to be based on some Daily Mail rant about reds under the bed and Trade Unions.
You "goddess" Maggie was a friend to Latin American dictators and introduced Section 28 . Hardly things that a woman such as you whose a Trade Unionist and into BDSM should support is it?
I dont really care if you support her but at least be honest about it. suggesting its based on her policies remaining in place because they were effective simply isnt true. Which is why her party dumped her and reversed many of them.
You seem to think
|
No, I didn't think unions were the only issue, I just mentioned it. Again, you are failing to read properly.
She didn't smash the base of anything. Things were simply cheaper from abraod, and still are. Simple economics. Unless you are paying considerably more for British goods - put up and shut up. We all buy at the best price/quality available, because we don't like paying over the odds. That has naff-all to do with Thatcher, it started long before she came into power.
And again, can you tell us, which of her socio-economic policies were reversed, you've failed to in all of your many posts thus far.
You've been told she wasn't dumped, she was re-elected, twice.
All leaders have to go eventually, she had a fairly good innings by anybody's standards.
I have't referred to her as a goddess, YOU have. I really don't need words put in my mouth.
Gordon Brown is very pally with several dictators, Latin American and others. Your point is?? Are you some sort of xenophobe as well as a left wing ranter?
You obviously DO care if I support her, as you can't stop yourself from banging on about it. But she's long gone, and highly unlikely to want to come back at her advanced age, so what she did during her term, is her legacy now. One that subsequent governments, even Labour ones, have stuck with. Like it or not.
|
Firstly she broke with the consensus politcs and Economics of both post war parties and the "one nation " approch within her own party. So in terms of previous approches she was very different.
If you think allowing unregulated markets to create 3 .6 million unemployed is acceptable your in a very odd world.You seem to think reducing the UKs manufacturing base by 30% in such a brutal manner was acceptable.
Ultimitely a mixed economy using state intervention where appropropriate is what seems to work. The recent Banking crises shows how government has to intervene.
The record shows that the period 1950 to 1973, when government intervention in market economies was at its peacetime height, was uniquely successful economically, with no global recessions and faster rates of GDP growth — and growth of GDP per capita — than in any comparable period before or since.
One can argue that economic performance would have been even better with less government intervention. But perfect markets are no more available than perfect governments. All we have are comparisons between what happened at different times. What these comparisons show is that markets plus government have done better than markets minus government.
Nigel Lawson was Thatcher's second chancellor of the exchequer. Out of the government's anti-inflationary efforts emerged the “Lawson doctrine,” first stated in 1984 .
“The conquest of inflation should ... be the objective of macroeconomic policy. And the creation of conditions conducive to growth and employment should be ... the objective of microeconomic policy,” Lawson said.
This proposition overturned the previous Keynesian orthodoxy that macroeconomic policy should aim at full employment, with the control of inflation left to wage policy. Yet, despite all the “supply side” reforms introduced by Thatcherite governments, unemployment has been much higher since 1980 than in the 1950s and 1960s — 7.4 percent on average in the UK, compared to 1.6 percent in the earlier decades.
What about inflation targeting? Here, too, the record since 1980 has been patchy, despite the huge deflationary pressure exerted by low-wage competition from Asia. Inflation in 1950 to 1973 and 1980 to 2007 was about the same — just over 3 percent — while inflation targeting has failed to prevent a succession of asset bubbles that have brought recessions in their wake.
Nor has Thatcherite policy succeeded in one of its chief aims — to reduce the share of government spending in national income. The most one can say is that it halted the rise for a time. Now public spending is on the increase again and record peacetime deficits of 10 percent or more of GDP stretch ahead for years.
In de-regulating financial markets worldwide, the Thatcher-Reagan revolution brought about the corruption of money, without improving on the previous growth of wealth — except for the very wealthy. The average world citizen would have been 20 percent richer had world GDP per capita grown at the same rate between 1980 and 2007 as it did between 1950 and 1973 — and this despite China's high growth rates in the past 20 years. Furthermore, in unleashing the power of money, the Thatcherites, for all their moralizing, contributed to the moral decay of the West.
I know she was reelected twice, i also know she was dumped by her own party. Dont you remember the men in Grey suits telling her to go? Heseltine as the stalking horse.
Thats the point , you have such an obession with praising her you seem to ignore historical facts that clearly happened. For the third time ive listed policies of hers which were reversed by both paties which you simply ignore.
Why do you keep going on about Gordon Brown? We are talking about thatcher.
You simply chant the Thatcherite nonsense as if it was historical fact. Its not. Her legacy was one of failure, thrown out by her own party. Edited 28 Jan 10, 11:18 AM by nortyboy
|
28 Jan 10, 11:18 AM
MissP
UK(EN), 8 yrs
|
nortyboy wrote:
MissP wrote:
nortyboy wrote:
MissP wrote:
nortyboy wrote:
Like i said, avoiding the issues.
Whatever happened to the Poll Tax? lmao....
|
I haven't avoided the issues, you've completely avoided the question. As you're having comprehension problems, here it is again -
MissP wrote:
And yet in 20+ years, how many Thatcher ideals have been overturned by susequent leaders/goverments?? How many policies, EXACTLY, especially the socio-economic ones? I think you'll find it's a round number, beginning and ending in 0.
Not a Thatcher fan by any stretch, but by the goddesses, she's lasted. As have her policies. We are no longer under the rule of the dinosaur unions.
It's easy to knock. Do you have a better and more workable solution?? |
The Poll tax, which replaced a Labour tax anyway, is still in use, albeit under a different name. Labout have not recinded that, or indeed any of Thatcher's other socio-economic policies. Unless you can tell us differently?
We are paying MORE tax now, under Labour, than we ever have. Many of them backdoor taxes unfortunately.
Like her or hate her, Thatcher DID smash the stranglehold the unions had over British industry, and that's had extremelt positive results. I am a current union member, and ex-shop steward, I'm not anti union, but very anti the way they were. She gave them an almighty kick up the arse, which was frankly, long overdue.
Obvioulsy you don't have a better or more workable solution, otherwise you'd have posted it, instead of your rants.
|
Firstly you seem to think the only issue that needed resolving was the relationship with the Trade Unions.
It clearly wasnt . It also could have been done in a different manner. The example of the coalmine i gave you clearly illustrated that. She not only "smashed the Unions" but the manufacturing base of the country creating 3 .6 million people unememployed.
Your original point is that noone has moved away from her socio /economic policies.Thats simply not true.
Section 28, Poll Tax, her obession with privatisation , her complete lack intervention in the Economy all illustrate that. Her approch to inner cities , regional government and affordable housing have all been reversed.Finally she was dumped by her own party partially over her approch to Europe.
So the idea that noone has ever changed her policies as you assert is clearly false. Thats not a rant but historical reality. Thats why you avoid it each time you post.
Your response seems to be based on some Daily Mail rant about reds under the bed and Trade Unions.
You "goddess" Maggie was a friend to Latin American dictators and introduced Section 28 . Hardly things that a woman such as you whose a Trade Unionist and into BDSM should support is it?
I dont really care if you support her but at least be honest about it. suggesting its based on her policies remaining in place because they were effective simply isnt true. Which is why her party dumped her and reversed many of them.
You seem to think
|
No, I didn't think unions were the only issue, I just mentioned it. Again, you are failing to read properly.
She didn't smash the base of anything. Things were simply cheaper from abraod, and still are. Simple economics. Unless you are paying considerably more for British goods - put up and shut up. We all buy at the best price/quality available, because we don't like paying over the odds. That has naff-all to do with Thatcher, it started long before she came into power.
And again, can you tell us, which of her socio-economic policies were reversed, you've failed to in all of your many posts thus far.
You've been told she wasn't dumped, she was re-elected, twice.
All leaders have to go eventually, she had a fairly good innings by anybody's standards.
I have't referred to her as a goddess, YOU have. I really don't need words put in my mouth.
Gordon Brown is very pally with several dictators, Latin American and others. Your point is?? Are you some sort of xenophobe as well as a left wing ranter?
You obviously DO care if I support her, as you can't stop yourself from banging on about it. But she's long gone, and highly unlikely to want to come back at her advanced age, so what she did during her term, is her legacy now. One that subsequent governments, even Labour ones, have stuck with. Like it or not.
|
Firstly she broke with the consensus politcs and Economics of both post war parties and the "one nation " approch within her own party. So in terms of previous approches she was very different.
If you think allowing unregulated markets to create 3 .6 million unemployed is acceptable your in a very odd world.You seem to think reducing the UKs manufacturing base by 30% in such a brutal manner was acceptable.
Ultimitely a mixed economy using state intervention where appropropriate is what seems to work. The recent Banking crises shows how government has to intervene.
I know she was reelected twice, i also know she was dumped by her own party. Dont you remember the men in Grey suits telling her to go? Heseltine as the stalking horse.
Thats the point , you have such an obession with praising her you seem to ignore historical facts that clearly happened. For the third time ive listed policies of hers which were reversed by both paties which you simply ignore.
Why do you keep going on about Gordon Brown? We are talking about thatcher.
You simply chant the Thatcherite nonsense as if it was historical fact. Its not. Her legacy was one of failure, thrown out by her own party.
|
Elected to PM in 1979. Re-elected in 1983. Re-elected again for an unprecedented third term in 1987. Resigned, post a Heseltine challange (and that eventually came to nowt) in 1989. So 20 years. She's in fact held the post for the longest period in modern history. Not really a great dumping story by anybody's stretch of the imagination. Not even a left whinger. Subsequently, turned to by the likes of Blair and the Labour party for advice. So even they can't have thought she was that bad!
If we look at the chaos and mess created by Labour, prior to her election, I think she worked bloody miracles. As did a lot of other people, otherwise she wouldn't have help power for so long.
I think Wiki's article covers how tough a job she faced, as I'm sure you'll agree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_of_Discontent
Your prejudices cloud facts. You shouldn't allow hat to happen.
And no, there have been no major policy changes since her time. Unless you want to bung in fox hunting, Labour's only shift in law. Whoopee do.
nortyboy wrote:
The truth is that we were hit by this current recession because New Labour carried on with her barmy economic policies in relation to market forces. |
That was your original opinion, Mr Flip Flop.
www.thedivinemissp.co.uk
Edited 28 Jan 10, 11:20 AM by MissP
|
28 Jan 10, 11:24 AM
nortyboy
UK, 4 yrs
|
MissP wrote:
nortyboy wrote:
MissP wrote:
nortyboy wrote:
MissP wrote:
nortyboy wrote:
Like i said, avoiding the issues.
Whatever happened to the Poll Tax? lmao....
|
I haven't avoided the issues, you've completely avoided the question. As you're having comprehension problems, here it is again -
MissP wrote:
And yet in 20+ years, how many Thatcher ideals have been overturned by susequent leaders/goverments?? How many policies, EXACTLY, especially the socio-economic ones? I think you'll find it's a round number, beginning and ending in 0.
Not a Thatcher fan by any stretch, but by the goddesses, she's lasted. As have her policies. We are no longer under the rule of the dinosaur unions.
It's easy to knock. Do you have a better and more workable solution?? |
The Poll tax, which replaced a Labour tax anyway, is still in use, albeit under a different name. Labout have not recinded that, or indeed any of Thatcher's other socio-economic policies. Unless you can tell us differently?
We are paying MORE tax now, under Labour, than we ever have. Many of them backdoor taxes unfortunately.
Like her or hate her, Thatcher DID smash the stranglehold the unions had over British industry, and that's had extremelt positive results. I am a current union member, and ex-shop steward, I'm not anti union, but very anti the way they were. She gave them an almighty kick up the arse, which was frankly, long overdue.
Obvioulsy you don't have a better or more workable solution, otherwise you'd have posted it, instead of your rants.
|
Firstly you seem to think the only issue that needed resolving was the relationship with the Trade Unions.
It clearly wasnt . It also could have been done in a different manner. The example of the coalmine i gave you clearly illustrated that. She not only "smashed the Unions" but the manufacturing base of the country creating 3 .6 million people unememployed.
Your original point is that noone has moved away from her socio /economic policies.Thats simply not true.
Section 28, Poll Tax, her obession with privatisation , her complete lack intervention in the Economy all illustrate that. Her approch to inner cities , regional government and affordable housing have all been reversed.Finally she was dumped by her own party partially over her approch to Europe.
So the idea that noone has ever changed her policies as you assert is clearly false. Thats not a rant but historical reality. Thats why you avoid it each time you post.
Your response seems to be based on some Daily Mail rant about reds under the bed and Trade Unions.
You "goddess" Maggie was a friend to Latin American dictators and introduced Section 28 . Hardly things that a woman such as you whose a Trade Unionist and into BDSM should support is it?
I dont really care if you support her but at least be honest about it. suggesting its based on her policies remaining in place because they were effective simply isnt true. Which is why her party dumped her and reversed many of them.
You seem to think
|
No, I didn't think unions were the only issue, I just mentioned it. Again, you are failing to read properly.
She didn't smash the base of anything. Things were simply cheaper from abraod, and still are. Simple economics. Unless you are paying considerably more for British goods - put up and shut up. We all buy at the best price/quality available, because we don't like paying over the odds. That has naff-all to do with Thatcher, it started long before she came into power.
And again, can you tell us, which of her socio-economic policies were reversed, you've failed to in all of your many posts thus far.
You've been told she wasn't dumped, she was re-elected, twice.
All leaders have to go eventually, she had a fairly good innings by anybody's standards.
I have't referred to her as a goddess, YOU have. I really don't need words put in my mouth.
Gordon Brown is very pally with several dictators, Latin American and others. Your point is?? Are you some sort of xenophobe as well as a left wing ranter?
You obviously DO care if I support her, as you can't stop yourself from banging on about it. But she's long gone, and highly unlikely to want to come back at her advanced age, so what she did during her term, is her legacy now. One that subsequent governments, even Labour ones, have stuck with. Like it or not.
|
Firstly she broke with the consensus politcs and Economics of both post war parties and the "one nation " approch within her own party. So in terms of previous approches she was very different.
If you think allowing unregulated markets to create 3 .6 million unemployed is acceptable your in a very odd world.You seem to think reducing the UKs manufacturing base by 30% in such a brutal manner was acceptable.
Ultimitely a mixed economy using state intervention where appropropriate is what seems to work. The recent Banking crises shows how government has to intervene.
I know she was reelected twice, i also know she was dumped by her own party. Dont you remember the men in Grey suits telling her to go? Heseltine as the stalking horse.
Thats the point , you have such an obession with praising her you seem to ignore historical facts that clearly happened. For the third time ive listed policies of hers which were reversed by both paties which you simply ignore.
Why do you keep going on about Gordon Brown? We are talking about thatcher.
You simply chant the Thatcherite nonsense as if it was historical fact. Its not. Her legacy was one of failure, thrown out by her own party.
|
Elected to PM in 1979. Re-elected in 1983. Re-elected again for an unprecedented third term in 1987. Resigned, post a Heseltine challange (and that eventually came to nowt) in 1989. So 20 years. She's in fact held the post for the longest period in modern history. Not really a great dumping story by anybody's stretch of the imagination. Not even a left whinger. Subsequently, turned to by the likes of Blair and the Labour party for advice. So even they can't have thought she was that bad!
If we look at the chaos and mess created by Labour, prior to her election, I think she worked bloody miracles. As did a lot of other people, otherwise she wouldn't have help power for so long.
I think Wiki's article covers how tough a job she faced, as I'm sure you'll agree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_of_Discontent
Your prejudices cloud facts. You shouldn't allow hat to happen.
And no, there have been no major policy changes since her time. Unless you want to bung in fox hunting, Labour's only shift in law. Whoopee do.
|
I do enjoy the way you avoid any discussion of her Economics policies, the history and politics of the Conservative party, Section 28 and the Poll Tax.
There is an academic world beyond Wikipedia and you would do well to examine it rather than rely on "pop anaylsis"
Since you continue to ignore serious debate i can only conclude you dont really understand what you are talking about. Your comment that" id been told " is hilarious. As if you and one other person hold the ultimate knowledge lol. His view wasnt even based on fact!!!
Make up your mind weather you like Blair and Brown or not!!
Watch out for those reds under the bed lol!
Edited 28 Jan 10, 11:43 AM by nortyboy
|
28 Jan 10, 11:41 AM
MissP
UK(EN), 8 yrs
|
nortyboy wrote:
I do enjoy the way you avoid any discussion of her Economics policies, the history and politics of the Conservative party, Section 28 and the Poll Tax. |
Because THAT WAS NOT THE QUESTION!
How many times do you have to be told the same thing before it sinks in??
nortyboy wrote:
There is an academic world beyond Wikipedia and you would do well to examine it rather than rely on "pop anaylsis" |
You would do well to aquaint yourself with facts, before you spout.
nortyboy wrote:
Make up your mind weather you like Blair and Brown or not!!
|
I don't. Simple enough for even you to understand hopefully.
nortyboy wrote:
Watch out for those reds under the bed lol! |
No need, What Thatcher didn't get rid of died a death anyway, Rejoice!!
www.thedivinemissp.co.uk
Edited 28 Jan 10, 11:43 AM by MissP
|
28 Jan 10, 11:53 AM
nortyboy
UK, 4 yrs
|
MissP wrote:
nortyboy wrote:
I do enjoy the way you avoid any discussion of her Economics policies, the history and politics of the Conservative party, Section 28 and the Poll Tax. |
Because THAT WAS NOT THE QUESTION!
How many times do you have to be told the same thing before it sinks in??
nortyboy wrote:
There is an academic world beyond Wikipedia and you would do well to examine it rather than rely on "pop anaylsis" |
You would do well to aquaint yourself with facts, before you spout.
nortyboy wrote:
Make up your mind weather you like Blair and Brown or not!!
|
I don't. Simple enough for even you to understand hopefully.
nortyboy wrote:
Watch out for those reds under the bed lol! |
No need, What Thatcher didn't get rid of died a death anyway, Rejoice!!
|
Lol so now you didnt ask me to name what socio economic policies had failed or been reversed? LMAO talk about make it up as you go along. There simply not questions you can answer or want to.
As for rejoiceing that comes when shes six foot under . Bollinger anyone?
|
28 Jan 10, 12:37 PM
MissP
UK(EN), 8 yrs
|
nortyboy wrote:
Lol so now you didnt ask me to name what socio economic policies had failed or been reversed? LMAO talk about make it up as you go along. There simply not questions you can answer or want to. |
It's my blog, and I'll pick what questions I want to ask, it's not up to you to answer something completely different!
If I'd asked you how fabulous do you think nipple clamps are - would the correct answer be, I don't like flggers? No. So why do it on another topic. Quite simply because you have a ranting agenda, and are capable of little else. Time after time you were directed towards the subject, and time after time, you bashed away at your keyboard, andwreing something that hadn't been asked.
nortyboy wrote:
As for rejoiceing that comes when shes six foot under . Bollinger anyone?
|
Champagne socialists are, of course, the vilest. But oh so predictable 
www.thedivinemissp.co.uk
|
28 Jan 10, 12:40 PM
MissP
UK(EN), 8 yrs
|
Topic now closed, as I *really* must crack on with painting my nails  www.thedivinemissp.co.uk
|
