Blair .... Good Or Bad.

[DavyR]

Just look at most official forms nowadays when you have to declare your nationality there are boxes for irish,scottish and welsh but not english sorry you'll just have to be white european instead, is this because tony has sold us and our rights down the river to the EU

 

Apparently, there's nothing to say that the designers of such forms *can't* offer "English" as an option, so I wonder why you rarely if ever see it?

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/c...xt/50704w34.htm

[gozzer]

The main thing I'm seeing from this thread, is just how big the North/South divide really is!

 

From your post Ian, I can see many similarities between you and I.

I wonder, if the geography had been different, would we have each had the others view on things?

 

There are a few things though.

Yes Thatcher was strong willed, and rarely backed down. But this can be said of many dictators

throughout history.

The newscasts on the miners strike did, (as Davy points out) only show one side of the situation. It was much more brutal, and the goading of non militant, ordinary workers, forced them into joining the leaders, and escalated the violence.

There was so much manipulating of the events, that it got the public on her side, eventually.

I wasn't a Scargill fan, but what he prophesied did happened. He miss judged the power of the media machine, got his timing wrong, and thousands paid the price, when Thatcher ground her heel in.

What happened then? The moneymen came in bought up the properties at a reduced price, opened shopping centres and the like, and employed skilled men as security guards at £2.50 ph.

 

The steel mills went the way of the miners. We imported cheap steel from abroad, of inferior quality. That made my job even harder, because the sheets of steel that came through with laminations in it, were either used to make an inferior product, or whole batches had to be sent back, causing delays in meeting delivery times.

 

As for the Falklands fiasco. It was leapt upon by Thatcher like a drowning man to a passing piece of wood. It diverted the publics attention, and kept her in power for a few more years.

The difference between her and Blair, IMO was, that he actually believed he was right about Iraq, where as she just used the opportunity to her own advantage.

 

John.

 

P.S. This thread has run over 100 posts and there's been none of the usual name calling and abuse, well done everybody. .

 

Still no viable alternative to the present Government yet.

Edited May 11, 2007 by gozzer

[corydoras]

I don't object to administering it through the tax system. I object to the tax break being extended to people who don't need it.

Well you could, but it's hard to support when while the UK's population may be ageing, it's too large. Look at the balance of supply and demand for housing.

What 'balance' of supply and demand. There is no supply and demand in the housing market. The country is crying out for new homes to be built, the demand for affordable housing is immense, but thewre is little increase in supply. At risk of being slagged off for using the F word again, France built 500,000 new units of social housing last year. Houses to be let by local authorities to working families at a reasonable rent, not for sale. If the French can do that for their citizens, why do British subjects deserve less?

[ColinW]

The Tories sole economic idea was to buy from the cheapest source. So instead of buying deep mined, "expensive" UK coal we now buy it "cheap" from places like Venezuela, where it is strip mined, destroying the environment and poisoning the local water supplies.

Of course you could argue about what constitutes "expensive". If a Thatcherite wants his car washing and his son asks for £3, presumably he gives the job to the kid next door who'll do the job for £2. Of course then his kid has no money and ends up scrounging (or stealing) it off him anyway, so was that really a sound economic decision? Is that not the same as putting the whole of the UK mining industry out of work and then having to pay them benefits for life?

But then of course "the country" doesn't buy the coal any more, does it? Thatcher's privatised electricity companies buy it, and they have absolutely no interest in any "larger picture" of what is good or bad for the country. All their directors care about is maximising their profits for their (foreign) investors so they can line their own pockets via their share options and bonuses.

[nick]

let's not forget that it is a legal obligation of company directors to maximise profits. They are no longer allowed a social conscience.

[jedibond]

P.S. This thread has run over 100 posts and there's been none of the usual name calling and abuse, well done everybody. .

 

Git

 

[gozzer]

Git

 

 

Shut up you.....you......you....'SOUTHERNER'

 

 

 

John.

[Steve Walker]

What 'balance' of supply and demand. There is no supply and demand in the housing market. The country is crying out for new homes to be built, the demand for affordable housing is immense, but thewre is little increase in supply.

 

Exactly my point. Although I have to say that were I the owner of a starter home in, say, Kent, mortgaged up to the hilt on a small deposit and a big multiple of salary, I wouldn't welcome the prospect of a sudden increase in the housing supply dumping me into negative equity while interest rates are rising. Personally, having just exchanged contracts today on the sale of our house to a man with a buy-to-let empire of starter homes, and having been roundly shafted by a bit of last minute gazundering, I think I'd enjoy a little schadenfreude if rents and equity at the bottom of the market dropped through the floor.

[wanzelbin]

There was so much manipulating of the events, that it got the public on her side, eventually.

 

The media and the Internet have made Blair and New Labour's job very different from any previous government in history. Never before has the public had such extensive access to information. Virtually every government action is viewed, researched and commented on by many people who would previously have been completely unaware. Both domestic and international events can be scrutinised and publicly judged by any person with a computer (see us lot!).

Though on the good side this encourages accountability and a hope that the job might be done properly, it makes it very difficult for the government to actually implement anything.

One of the most basic ideas behind a democratic government is to allow a large population to select a small group who can makes decisions and actions on their behalf. Until now, a government didn't have to justify everything it did, good or bad.

[Steve Walker]

Shut up you.....you......you....'SOUTHERNER'

 

What about us economic migrants?