Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Donald Trump. Leg End or Bell End?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hubble
    replied
    Oh, what I should have added of course, is the situation for young people today. Most of them have no hope of getting on the property ladder, they have been priced out of the market. If this is the state we're in 40 years after Thatcher first came to power then I'd say her policies have failed this nation. And also to add that selling off council housing was a bribe to the working classes - short term gain, but long term pain. Short-termism is the what Tory policies have been about since Thatcher. The irony is that none of this is what true Conservatism stands for. It's not in fact Conservatism, but neo-liberalism masquerading as conservatism.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hubble
    replied
    Originally posted by Stanley View Post
    Ok, so you're saying this was not beneficial to the country's economy?: "It (small government) allowed the stock markets and industries to compete more heavily with each other and made British goods more valued in world trade."
    Yes, even that is moot. The deregulation of the financial system under Thatcher and Reagan is directly linked to the massive collapse of the financial system in 2008. I'd say it was a crazy thing to do, the way they did it. For sure, it allowed the rich to get even richer, and it allowed the poor to get poorer, increasing the debt burden on ordinary people massively. Far from helping people become wealthy, in actual fact, this created a swathe of debt-slaves, a heinous act, IMO. Thatcher's much vaunted 'trickle-down' effect was in fact BS, like so much else that she said.

    Originally posted by Stanley View Post
    Or the working classes being given the right to buy their council homes and getting them on to the property ladder was an altogether bad thing?
    Pros and cons laid out here: https://www.theguardian.com/housing-...-thatcher-data
    This was just another way of breaking up the cohesiveness of communities, and furthermore, taking social housing out of local authority ownership has directly led to the housing problems and shortages we see today, and also the insane property prices that are due to the limited supply . This should never have been done. The whole point of social housing is that it is there for the poorest in society to have security of tenure. Yes, it created a whole new swathe of people entering the capitalist economy, and a by-product of that was more debt-slavery. Of course, for many there were short to medium term benefits - i.e they made money out of it - but if you look at the overall picture, allied to all her other policies, what is the net result? A fractured and divided society. Debt slavery. Increasing divide between rich and poor. Decimated local services. All the problems we're experiencing now have a direct link back to her policies.

    Originally posted by Stanley View Post
    Or by encouraging a free market economy, private enterprise and reducing red tape for small / new businesses, which allowed many to thrive and prosper were bad things?
    Yes, I'll go with that, in part.

    Originally posted by Stanley View Post
    Or are you saying that she had absolutely no redeeming policies which benefited the country?
    You haven't mentioned privatisation, which has been a disaster for this country IMO. It has siphoned public wealth away from the people into the hands of a few and furthermore, it has meant so many of our once publicly-owned utilities are now owned by foreign investors and other countries. How ironic that the state-systems she ripped up have profited to the benefit of ordinary people living in state-systems abroad - France, Holland and Germany all owning our once public utilities for example.

    Then look at the insanity of rail privatisation, where the tax-payer continues to subsidise the rail companies to the tune of billions - a massive, massive rip-off.

    I'm not saying that any of these companies didn't need sorting out and root and branch reform, but it was the way it was done that was so wrong. It was all about siphoning people's money into the hands of the few - her Tory mates and her chums in the city. Vested interests all the way. For me, a stakeholder model should have been implemented, where everyone in a company has a share of its profits, giving them the incentive to do the best job.

    When Thatcher met the neo-liberals at the Bilderberg group before she became PM she was basically instructed on how to carry out their policies; the aim of those policies was to destroy any resistance to a neoliberal economy by dividing people up into competing individuals. In order to do this, she had to break down communities and any cohesion amongst the working classes - ergo, destroying the unions. Again, I'm not saying these didn't need reform, but again, it was how it was done. The legacy of Thatcherism is writ large for all of us to see: a divided country, fractured communities, massive private wealth in the hands of a few, huge housing shortages, once publicly-owned companies with overseas owners, years of austerity measures, an imploding NHS (another deliberate Tory policy to pave the way for privatisation), increased crime, under-funded police... I could go on.... you get my point I think.

    Leave a comment:


  • brightonr
    replied
    Regardless of anybody's views on Mrs T, even her most ardent opponents should surely be grateful to her from saving us from Kinnock, Foot and any more Callaghan.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stanley
    replied
    Originally posted by Hubble View Post
    No, I don't agree with that. That's a value judgement the wiki entry doesn't make.
    Ok, so you're saying this was not beneficial to the country's economy?: "It (small government) allowed the stock markets and industries to compete more heavily with each other and made British goods more valued in world trade."

    Or the working classes being given the right to buy their council homes and getting them on to the property ladder was an altogether bad thing?
    Pros and cons laid out here: https://www.theguardian.com/housing-...-thatcher-data

    Or by encouraging a free market economy, private enterprise and reducing red tape for small / new businesses, which allowed many to thrive and prosper were bad things?

    Or are you saying that she had absolutely no redeeming policies which benefited the country?

    Leave a comment:


  • Hubble
    replied
    Originally posted by Stanley View Post
    Ok, so at least you agree she did some good things for the country, e.g. paras 1, 2 and 4.
    No, I don't agree with that. That's a value judgement the wiki entry doesn't make.

    Leave a comment:


  • Itsonlyagame
    replied
    Originally posted by Kevin Mcleod View Post
    Couldnt even bring myself to post that.
    Or the somalian princess steaming a coffee shop celebrating Winston Churchill.
    Im off to Spain to let them have another immigrant im telling ya
    And you can bet your very last shekel that when every last image of the beautiful female form has been removed from our screens, magazines etc, there will still be Tom ####ing Daley calendars all over the place.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stanley
    replied
    Originally posted by Hubble View Post
    It's just a factual entry Stan, nothing to disagree with - it doesn't make any judgements.
    Ok, so at least you agree she did some good things for the country, e.g. paras 1, 2 and 4.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hubble
    replied
    It's just a factual entry Stan, nothing to disagree with - it doesn't make any judgements.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stanley
    replied
    Originally posted by Hubble View Post
    What am I meant to be disagreeing with Stan? It seems pretty even handed.
    The Thatcher references. The link should direct you straight to the UK entry on that page. If not, here it is:

    United Kingdom

    The idea of small government was heavily promoted in the United Kingdom by the Conservative government under the Premiership of Margaret Thatcher. There are differing views on the extent to which it was achieved. It allowed the stock markets and industries to compete more heavily with each other and made British goods more valued in world trade.[citation needed]

    An important part of the Thatcher government's policy was privatization, which was intended to reduce the role of the state in the economy and allow industries to act without government interference. Supporters blamed excessive government intervention for much of Britain's economic woes during the late 1960s and 1970s.

    Opponents argue that privatisation harms social programs for the poor. This argument is particularly heard in connection with the railways and the National Health Service. Small government supporters, such as the British author and journalist James Bartholomew, point out that although record amounts of funding have gone into social security, public education, council housing and the NHS, it has been detrimental to the people it was intended to help and does not represent value for investment.[13]

    In the 20th century, small government was generally associated with the Conservative Party and big government with the Labour Party.

    In addition to opposing government intervention in the economy, advocates of small government oppose government intervention in people's personal lives. The Labour government during the Premiership of Tony Blair was criticized on this score, e.g., by giving unwanted advice about eating, drinking and smoking. This has been dubbed as the 'nanny state'.[citation needed]

    Leave a comment:


  • Hubble
    replied
    Originally posted by Stanley View Post
    I take it you disagree with this entry?: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smal...United_Kingdom
    What am I meant to be disagreeing with Stan? It seems pretty even handed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hubble
    replied
    Originally posted by Kevin Mcleod View Post
    Is barry or hilary in my sort of big trouble. Any prison?
    She's got to be shitting herself - if she wasn't already.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kevin Mcleod
    replied
    Is barry or hilary in my sort of big trouble. Any prison?

    Leave a comment:


  • Kevin Mcleod
    replied
    Woah. Explosive. I love it, thanks yeah.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stanley
    replied
    Originally posted by Hubble View Post
    fair play Stan
    I take it you disagree with this entry?: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smal...United_Kingdom

    Leave a comment:


  • Hubble
    replied
    Originally posted by Kevin Mcleod View Post
    Could you let us know what it is about please Hubb, ive been waiting so bad but im in the pub now. FML
    Basically it shows the FBI did not follow due process but were totally biased in their investigation of Trump and alleged collusion with Russia - and also that they relied on info that was paid for by the Democrats - in other words clear political bias. This is just the beginning. Explosive.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X