Personally I like the way I can drive to the shops without having to steer around bin bags and corpses due to the binmen and undertakers not being on strike, and that the shop isn't shut thanks to rolling blackouts, but apart from that, 1978 doesn't sound too bad.
but don't you think having dead bodies and bin bags everywhere just, you know, drove us together and gave us a real sense of community. We were all really in that together. Not anymore, thanks to the WITCH.
I know it was tongue-in-cheek but thanks for addressing her by her rightful title ;-)
Up until recently there was some graffiti on a building beside the railway tracks between New Cross and London Bridge which appeared after Thatch carked it.
"The witch is dead but the spell lives on". Have to say I still agree with that sentiment.....
this gets my goat, the hypocrisy when lefties claim conservatives are vile when they do and defend things like that. Fair enough dislike the woman, hate her and call her a witch, free speech and all that but to go on and say conservatives are nasty and evil and you're the good guys when you sink to things like that.
It's mind boggling.
It's not even fair enough for most lefties to dislike the woman since they have a rather warped perception of her thanks to the continuous rewriting of history by the BBC, Channel 4, the Guardian, the Labour Party & the SNP. If you believed everything these organisations say, you'd think 1978 UK was a powerful nation of hardworking socialists, all signed-up to trade unions and all with perfect healthcare and government funded homes and jobs, and that the sum of all Government actions between 1979 and 1997 was to transfer the entirety of the nation's wealth into the 5 richest men in the UK and everyone else living on and in sewage.
The only real reason why she winds Lefties up is because she successfully showed there was a better way forward than socialism and British socialism has been on the downslide ever since.
i'm pretty suspicious when some one says highly respected media outlets have rewritten history but i agree with the last half of your statement. Thatcher was the antithesis of the left at the time. One reason i find the left deeply suspicious is their demonisation of thatcher, it's not healthy for a democracy for one side to demonise the other in the way the left tend to do in this country. This is why i am also reluctant to dismiss farage as a racist facist and any one who votes ukip is racist. I don't agree with their policies (what are they again?) but to demonise the political will of a significant group of people in this country is rather dangerous, whether you agree with it or not.
One thing i don't really like/understand is political contributions. I don't see how or why the rich and trade unions should donate and so gain leverage on a political party. But i guess that's an arguement for another day.
The important thing for this thread is that the majority of britons (including myself) think that we should stay part of the eu, from a recent poll in the mail (bleugh)
I agree about the demonising but I see it from both the left and right.
For every "witch" there is a "PC loony"
For every "racist" there is a "leftie middle class tosser"
For every "blame maggie" there is "blame Blair/Brown"
Two sides of the same coin
oh quite, but apart from "PC looney" (which i think is a lazy and like saying "i'm not racist but...") the other two seem to come from people in response of the right wing hate. "This all started with thatcher" is often said, no one seems to accept blair and brown inherited one of the strongest economies in the world and turned it into one with the largest deficit since ww2, with half the gold reserves and the tax payer £4 billion out of pocket as a result. It's done for balance more than anything else.
We don't hear david cameron saying "the labour party want to destroy the economy" they say "the labour party's policies will destroy the economy", whilst mr miliband and co say "the tories would like nothing more to make the rich richer and the poor poorer". One appeals to reason, for you to take a look at the arguements and see if you agree, the other is a very emotive and provocative statement. I find this kind of argument in a democratic society rather uncomfortable and dangerous. It's also why i find russell brand's arguments and his supporters rather dangerous. I see comments on his parklife parody of a parody video saying cameron will be "Swinging from the tower" and those that oppose brand will "be the ones sweeping the street" after the "revolution". I would rather live in a world where there are rich and poor than one where everyones poor and the rich are being hung.
Personally I like the way I can drive to the shops without having to steer around bin bags and corpses due to the binmen and undertakers not being on strike, and that the shop isn't shut thanks to rolling blackouts, but apart from that, 1978 doesn't sound too bad.
but don't you think having dead bodies and bin bags everywhere just, you know, drove us together and gave us a real sense of community. We were all really in that together. Not anymore, thanks to the WITCH.
I know it was tongue-in-cheek but thanks for addressing her by her rightful title ;-)
Up until recently there was some graffiti on a building beside the railway tracks between New Cross and London Bridge which appeared after Thatch carked it.
"The witch is dead but the spell lives on". Have to say I still agree with that sentiment.....
this gets my goat, the hypocrisy when lefties claim conservatives are vile when they do and defend things like that. Fair enough dislike the woman, hate her and call her a witch, free speech and all that but to go on and say conservatives are nasty and evil and you're the good guys when you sink to things like that.
It's mind boggling.
It's not even fair enough for most lefties to dislike the woman since they have a rather warped perception of her thanks to the continuous rewriting of history by the BBC, Channel 4, the Guardian, the Labour Party & the SNP. If you believed everything these organisations say, you'd think 1978 UK was a powerful nation of hardworking socialists, all signed-up to trade unions and all with perfect healthcare and government funded homes and jobs, and that the sum of all Government actions between 1979 and 1997 was to transfer the entirety of the nation's wealth into the 5 richest men in the UK and everyone else living on and in sewage.
The only real reason why she winds Lefties up is because she successfully showed there was a better way forward than socialism and British socialism has been on the downslide ever since.
i'm pretty suspicious when some one says highly respected media outlets have rewritten history but i agree with the last half of your statement. Thatcher was the antithesis of the left at the time. One reason i find the left deeply suspicious is their demonisation of thatcher, it's not healthy for a democracy for one side to demonise the other in the way the left tend to do in this country. This is why i am also reluctant to dismiss farage as a racist facist and any one who votes ukip is racist. I don't agree with their policies (what are they again?) but to demonise the political will of a significant group of people in this country is rather dangerous, whether you agree with it or not.
One thing i don't really like/understand is political contributions. I don't see how or why the rich and trade unions should donate and so gain leverage on a political party. But i guess that's an arguement for another day.
The important thing for this thread is that the majority of britons (including myself) think that we should stay part of the eu, from a recent poll in the mail (bleugh)
I agree about the demonising but I see it from both the left and right.
For every "witch" there is a "PC loony"
For every "racist" there is a "leftie middle class tosser"
For every "blame maggie" there is "blame Blair/Brown"
Two sides of the same coin
oh quite, but apart from "PC looney" (which i think is a lazy and like saying "i'm not racist but...") the other two seem to come from people in response of the right wing hate. "This all started with thatcher" is often said, no one seems to accept blair and brown inherited one of the strongest economies in the world and turned it into one with the largest deficit since ww2, with half the gold reserves and the tax payer £4 billion out of pocket as a result. It's done for balance more than anything else.
We don't hear david cameron saying "the labour party want to destroy the economy" they say "the labour party's policies will destroy the economy", whilst mr miliband and co say "the tories would like nothing more to make the rich richer and the poor poorer". One appeals to reason, for you to take a look at the arguements and see if you agree, the other is a very emotive and provocative statement. I find this kind of argument in a democratic society rather uncomfortable and dangerous. It's also why i find russell brand's arguments and his supporters rather dangerous. I see comments on his parklife parody of a parody video saying cameron will be "Swinging from the tower" and those that oppose brand will "be the ones sweeping the street" after the "revolution". I would rather live in a world where there are rich and poor than one where everyones poor and the rich are being hung.
No, she winds this lefty up because her policies decimated whole regions of the North, a lot of which have yet to recover. I appreciate that you in the South may have a different view but mention her name anywhere north of Birmingham and people's animosity towards her isn't because she showed a 'better way forward'.
Sigh.
First of all I live in Lancashire.
Secondly, a lot of the 'decimation' I'm assuming you're referring to would have happened anyway even if Labour had won in 1979 (in fact Labour were shutting down mines and industries at a faster rate than Maggie was before they were booted out) as the country simply didn't have the economic power to continue to prop up the industries of the north. It's complicated but blaming it all on Maggie just because it happened under her watch is the same as blaming Gordon Brown for the global recession. I'm not going to claim every decision she made was right, far from it, but the reality of it is the North was always going to be hit hard in the 80s regardless of who was in power. Not a single expert has been able to come up with what would have been a better alternative, even with the benefit of hindsight.
The fact is what is done is done and the only reason people are bitter about it is because of rewritten history that continues to be peddled by the aforementioned organisations for political purposes.
But people on this forum do blame Gordon Brown for the global recession. Just saying...
Id re nationalise all the Utilities and rail. in both cases it was never " a level playing field" and never will be. Nothing to do with the EU.
in EU ---yes in the Euro---no immigration --yes Open borders/mass immigration---no Vote----yes would be a massive vote to stay in
seems to have also been forgotten by labour and the Torys that Gordon brown did say he would give us a vote on the EU if he became PM---but just another labour lie.
Personally I like the way I can drive to the shops without having to steer around bin bags and corpses due to the binmen and undertakers not being on strike, and that the shop isn't shut thanks to rolling blackouts, but apart from that, 1978 doesn't sound too bad.
but don't you think having dead bodies and bin bags everywhere just, you know, drove us together and gave us a real sense of community. We were all really in that together. Not anymore, thanks to the WITCH.
I know it was tongue-in-cheek but thanks for addressing her by her rightful title ;-)
Up until recently there was some graffiti on a building beside the railway tracks between New Cross and London Bridge which appeared after Thatch carked it.
"The witch is dead but the spell lives on". Have to say I still agree with that sentiment.....
this gets my goat, the hypocrisy when lefties claim conservatives are vile when they do and defend things like that. Fair enough dislike the woman, hate her and call her a witch, free speech and all that but to go on and say conservatives are nasty and evil and you're the good guys when you sink to things like that.
It's mind boggling.
It's not even fair enough for most lefties to dislike the woman since they have a rather warped perception of her thanks to the continuous rewriting of history by the BBC, Channel 4, the Guardian, the Labour Party & the SNP. If you believed everything these organisations say, you'd think 1978 UK was a powerful nation of hardworking socialists, all signed-up to trade unions and all with perfect healthcare and government funded homes and jobs, and that the sum of all Government actions between 1979 and 1997 was to transfer the entirety of the nation's wealth into the 5 richest men in the UK and everyone else living on and in sewage.
The only real reason why she winds Lefties up is because she successfully showed there was a better way forward than socialism and British socialism has been on the downslide ever since.
i'm pretty suspicious when some one says highly respected media outlets have rewritten history but i agree with the last half of your statement. Thatcher was the antithesis of the left at the time. One reason i find the left deeply suspicious is their demonisation of thatcher, it's not healthy for a democracy for one side to demonise the other in the way the left tend to do in this country. This is why i am also reluctant to dismiss farage as a racist facist and any one who votes ukip is racist. I don't agree with their policies (what are they again?) but to demonise the political will of a significant group of people in this country is rather dangerous, whether you agree with it or not.
One thing i don't really like/understand is political contributions. I don't see how or why the rich and trade unions should donate and so gain leverage on a political party. But i guess that's an arguement for another day.
The important thing for this thread is that the majority of britons (including myself) think that we should stay part of the eu, from a recent poll in the mail (bleugh)
I agree about the demonising but I see it from both the left and right.
For every "witch" there is a "PC loony"
For every "racist" there is a "leftie middle class tosser"
For every "blame maggie" there is "blame Blair/Brown"
Two sides of the same coin
oh quite, but apart from "PC looney" (which i think is a lazy and like saying "i'm not racist but...") the other two seem to come from people in response of the right wing hate. "This all started with thatcher" is often said, no one seems to accept blair and brown inherited one of the strongest economies in the world and turned it into one with the largest deficit since ww2, with half the gold reserves and the tax payer £4 billion out of pocket as a result. It's done for balance more than anything else.
We don't hear david cameron saying "the labour party want to destroy the economy" they say "the labour party's policies will destroy the economy", whilst mr miliband and co say "the tories would like nothing more to make the rich richer and the poor poorer". One appeals to reason, for you to take a look at the arguements and see if you agree, the other is a very emotive and provocative statement. I find this kind of argument in a democratic society rather uncomfortable and dangerous. It's also why i find russell brand's arguments and his supporters rather dangerous. I see comments on his parklife parody of a parody video saying cameron will be "Swinging from the tower" and those that oppose brand will "be the ones sweeping the street" after the "revolution". I would rather live in a world where there are rich and poor than one where everyones poor and the rich are being hung.
How old were you when Thatcher was PM?
I think we should give @kentaddick a break. He is having an admirable go at doing something very difficult in British political discourse - taking the centre ground, neither tribal right, nor tribal left. If he's doing that at a young age, so much more admirable. Took me years to try and work out where the centre ground is in a British context. And when you try and take the centre ground, you get pelters from both tribes who accuse you of being a Guardianista or in thrall to the rich bosses, depending on the tribe membership.
Personally I like the way I can drive to the shops without having to steer around bin bags and corpses due to the binmen and undertakers not being on strike, and that the shop isn't shut thanks to rolling blackouts, but apart from that, 1978 doesn't sound too bad.
but don't you think having dead bodies and bin bags everywhere just, you know, drove us together and gave us a real sense of community. We were all really in that together. Not anymore, thanks to the WITCH.
I know it was tongue-in-cheek but thanks for addressing her by her rightful title ;-)
Up until recently there was some graffiti on a building beside the railway tracks between New Cross and London Bridge which appeared after Thatch carked it.
"The witch is dead but the spell lives on". Have to say I still agree with that sentiment.....
this gets my goat, the hypocrisy when lefties claim conservatives are vile when they do and defend things like that. Fair enough dislike the woman, hate her and call her a witch, free speech and all that but to go on and say conservatives are nasty and evil and you're the good guys when you sink to things like that.
It's mind boggling.
It's not even fair enough for most lefties to dislike the woman since they have a rather warped perception of her thanks to the continuous rewriting of history by the BBC, Channel 4, the Guardian, the Labour Party & the SNP. If you believed everything these organisations say, you'd think 1978 UK was a powerful nation of hardworking socialists, all signed-up to trade unions and all with perfect healthcare and government funded homes and jobs, and that the sum of all Government actions between 1979 and 1997 was to transfer the entirety of the nation's wealth into the 5 richest men in the UK and everyone else living on and in sewage.
The only real reason why she winds Lefties up is because she successfully showed there was a better way forward than socialism and British socialism has been on the downslide ever since.
i'm pretty suspicious when some one says highly respected media outlets have rewritten history but i agree with the last half of your statement. Thatcher was the antithesis of the left at the time. One reason i find the left deeply suspicious is their demonisation of thatcher, it's not healthy for a democracy for one side to demonise the other in the way the left tend to do in this country. This is why i am also reluctant to dismiss farage as a racist facist and any one who votes ukip is racist. I don't agree with their policies (what are they again?) but to demonise the political will of a significant group of people in this country is rather dangerous, whether you agree with it or not.
One thing i don't really like/understand is political contributions. I don't see how or why the rich and trade unions should donate and so gain leverage on a political party. But i guess that's an arguement for another day.
The important thing for this thread is that the majority of britons (including myself) think that we should stay part of the eu, from a recent poll in the mail (bleugh)
I agree about the demonising but I see it from both the left and right.
For every "witch" there is a "PC loony"
For every "racist" there is a "leftie middle class tosser"
For every "blame maggie" there is "blame Blair/Brown"
Two sides of the same coin
oh quite, but apart from "PC looney" (which i think is a lazy and like saying "i'm not racist but...") the other two seem to come from people in response of the right wing hate. "This all started with thatcher" is often said, no one seems to accept blair and brown inherited one of the strongest economies in the world and turned it into one with the largest deficit since ww2, with half the gold reserves and the tax payer £4 billion out of pocket as a result. It's done for balance more than anything else.
We don't hear david cameron saying "the labour party want to destroy the economy" they say "the labour party's policies will destroy the economy", whilst mr miliband and co say "the tories would like nothing more to make the rich richer and the poor poorer". One appeals to reason, for you to take a look at the arguements and see if you agree, the other is a very emotive and provocative statement. I find this kind of argument in a democratic society rather uncomfortable and dangerous. It's also why i find russell brand's arguments and his supporters rather dangerous. I see comments on his parklife parody of a parody video saying cameron will be "Swinging from the tower" and those that oppose brand will "be the ones sweeping the street" after the "revolution". I would rather live in a world where there are rich and poor than one where everyones poor and the rich are being hung.
How old were you when Thatcher was PM?
I think we should give @kentaddick a break. He is having an admirable go at doing something very difficult in British political discourse - taking the centre ground, neither tribal right, nor tribal left. If he's doing that at a young age, so much more admirable. Took me years to try and work out where the centre ground is in a British context. And when you try and take the centre ground, you get pelters from both tribes who accuse you of being a Guardianista or in thrall to the rich bosses, depending on the tribe membership.
Ah age. I believe that if you reach middle age and are NOT on the whole bang square in the middle range of political belief or opinion you have either, 1) had too sheltered a life or 2) had too much time to think about things and not just got on with it.
Personally I like the way I can drive to the shops without having to steer around bin bags and corpses due to the binmen and undertakers not being on strike, and that the shop isn't shut thanks to rolling blackouts, but apart from that, 1978 doesn't sound too bad.
but don't you think having dead bodies and bin bags everywhere just, you know, drove us together and gave us a real sense of community. We were all really in that together. Not anymore, thanks to the WITCH.
I know it was tongue-in-cheek but thanks for addressing her by her rightful title ;-)
Up until recently there was some graffiti on a building beside the railway tracks between New Cross and London Bridge which appeared after Thatch carked it.
"The witch is dead but the spell lives on". Have to say I still agree with that sentiment.....
this gets my goat, the hypocrisy when lefties claim conservatives are vile when they do and defend things like that. Fair enough dislike the woman, hate her and call her a witch, free speech and all that but to go on and say conservatives are nasty and evil and you're the good guys when you sink to things like that.
It's mind boggling.
It's not even fair enough for most lefties to dislike the woman since they have a rather warped perception of her thanks to the continuous rewriting of history by the BBC, Channel 4, the Guardian, the Labour Party & the SNP. If you believed everything these organisations say, you'd think 1978 UK was a powerful nation of hardworking socialists, all signed-up to trade unions and all with perfect healthcare and government funded homes and jobs, and that the sum of all Government actions between 1979 and 1997 was to transfer the entirety of the nation's wealth into the 5 richest men in the UK and everyone else living on and in sewage.
The only real reason why she winds Lefties up is because she successfully showed there was a better way forward than socialism and British socialism has been on the downslide ever since.
i'm pretty suspicious when some one says highly respected media outlets have rewritten history but i agree with the last half of your statement. Thatcher was the antithesis of the left at the time. One reason i find the left deeply suspicious is their demonisation of thatcher, it's not healthy for a democracy for one side to demonise the other in the way the left tend to do in this country. This is why i am also reluctant to dismiss farage as a racist facist and any one who votes ukip is racist. I don't agree with their policies (what are they again?) but to demonise the political will of a significant group of people in this country is rather dangerous, whether you agree with it or not.
One thing i don't really like/understand is political contributions. I don't see how or why the rich and trade unions should donate and so gain leverage on a political party. But i guess that's an arguement for another day.
The important thing for this thread is that the majority of britons (including myself) think that we should stay part of the eu, from a recent poll in the mail (bleugh)
I agree about the demonising but I see it from both the left and right.
For every "witch" there is a "PC loony"
For every "racist" there is a "leftie middle class tosser"
For every "blame maggie" there is "blame Blair/Brown"
Two sides of the same coin
oh quite, but apart from "PC looney" (which i think is a lazy and like saying "i'm not racist but...") the other two seem to come from people in response of the right wing hate. "This all started with thatcher" is often said, no one seems to accept blair and brown inherited one of the strongest economies in the world and turned it into one with the largest deficit since ww2, with half the gold reserves and the tax payer £4 billion out of pocket as a result. It's done for balance more than anything else.
We don't hear david cameron saying "the labour party want to destroy the economy" they say "the labour party's policies will destroy the economy", whilst mr miliband and co say "the tories would like nothing more to make the rich richer and the poor poorer". One appeals to reason, for you to take a look at the arguements and see if you agree, the other is a very emotive and provocative statement. I find this kind of argument in a democratic society rather uncomfortable and dangerous. It's also why i find russell brand's arguments and his supporters rather dangerous. I see comments on his parklife parody of a parody video saying cameron will be "Swinging from the tower" and those that oppose brand will "be the ones sweeping the street" after the "revolution". I would rather live in a world where there are rich and poor than one where everyones poor and the rich are being hung.
How old were you when Thatcher was PM?
I think we should give @kentaddick a break. He is having an admirable go at doing something very difficult in British political discourse - taking the centre ground, neither tribal right, nor tribal left. If he's doing that at a young age, so much more admirable. Took me years to try and work out where the centre ground is in a British context. And when you try and take the centre ground, you get pelters from both tribes who accuse you of being a Guardianista or in thrall to the rich bosses, depending on the tribe membership.
Ah age. I believe that if you reach middle age and are NOT on the whole bang square in the middle range of political belief or opinion you have either, 1) had too sheltered a life or 2) had too much time to think about things and not just got on with it.
The trouble is, one person's idea of middle is another person's left or right. For example, who here accept the Lib Dems as being the party of the "centre" ?
Come to think of it, "Borgen" depicted a party of " the centre" and showed how damn difficult it can be. I'd vote for Brigitte Nyborg all day long.
We don't hear david cameron saying "the labour party want to destroy the economy" they say "the labour party's policies will destroy the economy", whilst mr miliband and co say "the tories would like nothing more to make the rich richer and the poor poorer". One appeals to reason, for you to take a look at the arguements and see if you agree, the other is a very emotive and provocative statement. I find this kind of argument in a democratic society rather uncomfortable and dangerous. .
Disagree. Tories do exactly the same - "Labour want to raise your taxes" was in a poster recently. There's no differentation between any of the parties on the rehetoric they use.
Energy - EDF Energy has successfully been approved to build a Nuclear Power station in Somerset, but they had to seek approval from the EU while the goverment gave the go-ahead ages ago. The EU controls far too much.
.
Just one question, Disco
Do you approve of EDF Energy's role in our strategic national energy system?
I don't really have much of a opinion to be honest.
I just have a issue with the EU's interference on what goes on that only affects the UK, regardless whether its potentially good for the UK or not.
It shows, clearly and in a very readable style, how British privatisation means that huge swathes of our most important essential national utilities, Power, water, telecoms, rail, post, municipal housing, are now in foreign hands.
I hear a lot of UKippers banging on about loss of "sovereignty". Well this is the biggest loss of sovereignty I can identify and like many other things it has got feck all to do with the EU and everything to do with national politics. What's UKIP's policy on this then? Re-nationalise the lot?
That's why I asked. EDF is French. And the French thought and think we were complete nuts to allow our national assets to fall into their hands. They are laughing all the way to the bank.
You know that EDF is a state company owned 85% by the French Govt.?
Privatisation of natural monopolies was a terrible thing. Very much doubt that we can afford to renationalise them though.
Personally I like the way I can drive to the shops without having to steer around bin bags and corpses due to the binmen and undertakers not being on strike, and that the shop isn't shut thanks to rolling blackouts, but apart from that, 1978 doesn't sound too bad.
but don't you think having dead bodies and bin bags everywhere just, you know, drove us together and gave us a real sense of community. We were all really in that together. Not anymore, thanks to the WITCH.
I know it was tongue-in-cheek but thanks for addressing her by her rightful title ;-)
Up until recently there was some graffiti on a building beside the railway tracks between New Cross and London Bridge which appeared after Thatch carked it.
"The witch is dead but the spell lives on". Have to say I still agree with that sentiment.....
this gets my goat, the hypocrisy when lefties claim conservatives are vile when they do and defend things like that. Fair enough dislike the woman, hate her and call her a witch, free speech and all that but to go on and say conservatives are nasty and evil and you're the good guys when you sink to things like that.
It's mind boggling.
It's not even fair enough for most lefties to dislike the woman since they have a rather warped perception of her thanks to the continuous rewriting of history by the BBC, Channel 4, the Guardian, the Labour Party & the SNP. If you believed everything these organisations say, you'd think 1978 UK was a powerful nation of hardworking socialists, all signed-up to trade unions and all with perfect healthcare and government funded homes and jobs, and that the sum of all Government actions between 1979 and 1997 was to transfer the entirety of the nation's wealth into the 5 richest men in the UK and everyone else living on and in sewage.
The only real reason why she winds Lefties up is because she successfully showed there was a better way forward than socialism and British socialism has been on the downslide ever since.
i'm pretty suspicious when some one says highly respected media outlets have rewritten history but i agree with the last half of your statement. Thatcher was the antithesis of the left at the time. One reason i find the left deeply suspicious is their demonisation of thatcher, it's not healthy for a democracy for one side to demonise the other in the way the left tend to do in this country. This is why i am also reluctant to dismiss farage as a racist facist and any one who votes ukip is racist. I don't agree with their policies (what are they again?) but to demonise the political will of a significant group of people in this country is rather dangerous, whether you agree with it or not.
One thing i don't really like/understand is political contributions. I don't see how or why the rich and trade unions should donate and so gain leverage on a political party. But i guess that's an arguement for another day.
The important thing for this thread is that the majority of britons (including myself) think that we should stay part of the eu, from a recent poll in the mail (bleugh)
I agree about the demonising but I see it from both the left and right.
For every "witch" there is a "PC loony"
For every "racist" there is a "leftie middle class tosser"
For every "blame maggie" there is "blame Blair/Brown"
Two sides of the same coin
oh quite, but apart from "PC looney" (which i think is a lazy and like saying "i'm not racist but...") the other two seem to come from people in response of the right wing hate. "This all started with thatcher" is often said, no one seems to accept blair and brown inherited one of the strongest economies in the world and turned it into one with the largest deficit since ww2, with half the gold reserves and the tax payer £4 billion out of pocket as a result. It's done for balance more than anything else.
We don't hear david cameron saying "the labour party want to destroy the economy" they say "the labour party's policies will destroy the economy", whilst mr miliband and co say "the tories would like nothing more to make the rich richer and the poor poorer". One appeals to reason, for you to take a look at the arguements and see if you agree, the other is a very emotive and provocative statement. I find this kind of argument in a democratic society rather uncomfortable and dangerous. It's also why i find russell brand's arguments and his supporters rather dangerous. I see comments on his parklife parody of a parody video saying cameron will be "Swinging from the tower" and those that oppose brand will "be the ones sweeping the street" after the "revolution". I would rather live in a world where there are rich and poor than one where everyones poor and the rich are being hung.
Personally I like the way I can drive to the shops without having to steer around bin bags and corpses due to the binmen and undertakers not being on strike, and that the shop isn't shut thanks to rolling blackouts, but apart from that, 1978 doesn't sound too bad.
but don't you think having dead bodies and bin bags everywhere just, you know, drove us together and gave us a real sense of community. We were all really in that together. Not anymore, thanks to the WITCH.
I know it was tongue-in-cheek but thanks for addressing her by her rightful title ;-)
Up until recently there was some graffiti on a building beside the railway tracks between New Cross and London Bridge which appeared after Thatch carked it.
"The witch is dead but the spell lives on". Have to say I still agree with that sentiment.....
this gets my goat, the hypocrisy when lefties claim conservatives are vile when they do and defend things like that. Fair enough dislike the woman, hate her and call her a witch, free speech and all that but to go on and say conservatives are nasty and evil and you're the good guys when you sink to things like that.
It's mind boggling.
It's not even fair enough for most lefties to dislike the woman since they have a rather warped perception of her thanks to the continuous rewriting of history by the BBC, Channel 4, the Guardian, the Labour Party & the SNP. If you believed everything these organisations say, you'd think 1978 UK was a powerful nation of hardworking socialists, all signed-up to trade unions and all with perfect healthcare and government funded homes and jobs, and that the sum of all Government actions between 1979 and 1997 was to transfer the entirety of the nation's wealth into the 5 richest men in the UK and everyone else living on and in sewage.
The only real reason why she winds Lefties up is because she successfully showed there was a better way forward than socialism and British socialism has been on the downslide ever since.
i'm pretty suspicious when some one says highly respected media outlets have rewritten history but i agree with the last half of your statement. Thatcher was the antithesis of the left at the time. One reason i find the left deeply suspicious is their demonisation of thatcher, it's not healthy for a democracy for one side to demonise the other in the way the left tend to do in this country. This is why i am also reluctant to dismiss farage as a racist facist and any one who votes ukip is racist. I don't agree with their policies (what are they again?) but to demonise the political will of a significant group of people in this country is rather dangerous, whether you agree with it or not.
One thing i don't really like/understand is political contributions. I don't see how or why the rich and trade unions should donate and so gain leverage on a political party. But i guess that's an arguement for another day.
The important thing for this thread is that the majority of britons (including myself) think that we should stay part of the eu, from a recent poll in the mail (bleugh)
I agree about the demonising but I see it from both the left and right.
For every "witch" there is a "PC loony"
For every "racist" there is a "leftie middle class tosser"
For every "blame maggie" there is "blame Blair/Brown"
Two sides of the same coin
oh quite, but apart from "PC looney" (which i think is a lazy and like saying "i'm not racist but...") the other two seem to come from people in response of the right wing hate. "This all started with thatcher" is often said, no one seems to accept blair and brown inherited one of the strongest economies in the world and turned it into one with the largest deficit since ww2, with half the gold reserves and the tax payer £4 billion out of pocket as a result. It's done for balance more than anything else.
We don't hear david cameron saying "the labour party want to destroy the economy" they say "the labour party's policies will destroy the economy", whilst mr miliband and co say "the tories would like nothing more to make the rich richer and the poor poorer". One appeals to reason, for you to take a look at the arguements and see if you agree, the other is a very emotive and provocative statement. I find this kind of argument in a democratic society rather uncomfortable and dangerous. It's also why i find russell brand's arguments and his supporters rather dangerous. I see comments on his parklife parody of a parody video saying cameron will be "Swinging from the tower" and those that oppose brand will "be the ones sweeping the street" after the "revolution". I would rather live in a world where there are rich and poor than one where everyones poor and the rich are being hung.
How old were you when Thatcher was PM?
a question i ask a lot of people my age who celebrated when she kicked the bucket. Age has no relevance in political discourse, and you wonder why so many young people don't vote or have an interest in politics!
We don't hear david cameron saying "the labour party want to destroy the economy" they say "the labour party's policies will destroy the economy", whilst mr miliband and co say "the tories would like nothing more to make the rich richer and the poor poorer". One appeals to reason, for you to take a look at the arguements and see if you agree, the other is a very emotive and provocative statement. I find this kind of argument in a democratic society rather uncomfortable and dangerous. .
Disagree. Tories do exactly the same - "Labour want to raise your taxes" was in a poster recently. There's no differentation between any of the parties on the rehetoric they use.
Personally I like the way I can drive to the shops without having to steer around bin bags and corpses due to the binmen and undertakers not being on strike, and that the shop isn't shut thanks to rolling blackouts, but apart from that, 1978 doesn't sound too bad.
but don't you think having dead bodies and bin bags everywhere just, you know, drove us together and gave us a real sense of community. We were all really in that together. Not anymore, thanks to the WITCH.
I know it was tongue-in-cheek but thanks for addressing her by her rightful title ;-)
Up until recently there was some graffiti on a building beside the railway tracks between New Cross and London Bridge which appeared after Thatch carked it.
"The witch is dead but the spell lives on". Have to say I still agree with that sentiment.....
this gets my goat, the hypocrisy when lefties claim conservatives are vile when they do and defend things like that. Fair enough dislike the woman, hate her and call her a witch, free speech and all that but to go on and say conservatives are nasty and evil and you're the good guys when you sink to things like that.
It's mind boggling.
It's not even fair enough for most lefties to dislike the woman since they have a rather warped perception of her thanks to the continuous rewriting of history by the BBC, Channel 4, the Guardian, the Labour Party & the SNP. If you believed everything these organisations say, you'd think 1978 UK was a powerful nation of hardworking socialists, all signed-up to trade unions and all with perfect healthcare and government funded homes and jobs, and that the sum of all Government actions between 1979 and 1997 was to transfer the entirety of the nation's wealth into the 5 richest men in the UK and everyone else living on and in sewage.
The only real reason why she winds Lefties up is because she successfully showed there was a better way forward than socialism and British socialism has been on the downslide ever since.
i'm pretty suspicious when some one says highly respected media outlets have rewritten history but i agree with the last half of your statement. Thatcher was the antithesis of the left at the time. One reason i find the left deeply suspicious is their demonisation of thatcher, it's not healthy for a democracy for one side to demonise the other in the way the left tend to do in this country. This is why i am also reluctant to dismiss farage as a racist facist and any one who votes ukip is racist. I don't agree with their policies (what are they again?) but to demonise the political will of a significant group of people in this country is rather dangerous, whether you agree with it or not.
One thing i don't really like/understand is political contributions. I don't see how or why the rich and trade unions should donate and so gain leverage on a political party. But i guess that's an arguement for another day.
The important thing for this thread is that the majority of britons (including myself) think that we should stay part of the eu, from a recent poll in the mail (bleugh)
I agree about the demonising but I see it from both the left and right.
For every "witch" there is a "PC loony"
For every "racist" there is a "leftie middle class tosser"
For every "blame maggie" there is "blame Blair/Brown"
Two sides of the same coin
oh quite, but apart from "PC looney" (which i think is a lazy and like saying "i'm not racist but...") the other two seem to come from people in response of the right wing hate. "This all started with thatcher" is often said, no one seems to accept blair and brown inherited one of the strongest economies in the world and turned it into one with the largest deficit since ww2, with half the gold reserves and the tax payer £4 billion out of pocket as a result. It's done for balance more than anything else.
We don't hear david cameron saying "the labour party want to destroy the economy" they say "the labour party's policies will destroy the economy", whilst mr miliband and co say "the tories would like nothing more to make the rich richer and the poor poorer". One appeals to reason, for you to take a look at the arguements and see if you agree, the other is a very emotive and provocative statement. I find this kind of argument in a democratic society rather uncomfortable and dangerous. It's also why i find russell brand's arguments and his supporters rather dangerous. I see comments on his parklife parody of a parody video saying cameron will be "Swinging from the tower" and those that oppose brand will "be the ones sweeping the street" after the "revolution". I would rather live in a world where there are rich and poor than one where everyones poor and the rich are being hung.
How old were you when Thatcher was PM?
I think we should give @kentaddick a break. He is having an admirable go at doing something very difficult in British political discourse - taking the centre ground, neither tribal right, nor tribal left. If he's doing that at a young age, so much more admirable. Took me years to try and work out where the centre ground is in a British context. And when you try and take the centre ground, you get pelters from both tribes who accuse you of being a Guardianista or in thrall to the rich bosses, depending on the tribe membership.
more my own political belief being more libertarian than anything else. It's important to have opposition in politics, I like the guardian's ethical behaviour in recent times but i find myself pulling my hair out reading the columnists, ditto the telegraph. The world is not black and white and everyone's just making it up as they go along, as terrifying as that sounds!
I dunno, after the war Labour managed to creates the NHS, undertake a massive nationalisation programme, host the Olympics, introduce the country's first planing system and start development of the atom bomb. And those were days of real austerity.
We do live in a much more globalised world but there's lots Labour could do if it could grow some cajones. Instead of the stupid mansion tax it could extend Council tax bands; it could disincetivise second homes, increase the minimum wage to aim at a living wage. If it was really brave it could stop the ringfencing of the NHS and teh expense of everything else.
I dunno, after the war Labour managed to creates the NHS, undertake a massive nationalisation programme, host the Olympics, introduce the country's first planing system and start development of the atom bomb. And those were days of real austerity.
We do live in a much more globalised world but there's lots Labour could do if it could grow some cajones. Instead of the stupid mansion tax it could extend Council tax bands; it could disincetivise second homes, increase the minimum wage to aim at a living wage. If it was really brave it could stop the ringfencing of the NHS and teh expense of everything else.
the world was a very different place back then.
Isn't there the line of thought that increasing the minimum wage would in turn increase the living wage? Things would cost more to make/produce/sell etc?
Energy - EDF Energy has successfully been approved to build a Nuclear Power station in Somerset, but they had to seek approval from the EU while the goverment gave the go-ahead ages ago. The EU controls far too much.
.
Just one question, Disco
Do you approve of EDF Energy's role in our strategic national energy system?
I don't really have much of a opinion to be honest.
I just have a issue with the EU's interference on what goes on that only affects the UK, regardless whether its potentially good for the UK or not.
It shows, clearly and in a very readable style, how British privatisation means that huge swathes of our most important essential national utilities, Power, water, telecoms, rail, post, municipal housing, are now in foreign hands.
I hear a lot of UKippers banging on about loss of "sovereignty". Well this is the biggest loss of sovereignty I can identify and like many other things it has got feck all to do with the EU and everything to do with national politics. What's UKIP's policy on this then? Re-nationalise the lot?
That's why I asked. EDF is French. And the French thought and think we were complete nuts to allow our national assets to fall into their hands. They are laughing all the way to the bank.
You know that EDF is a state company owned 85% by the French Govt.?
Privatisation of natural monopolies was a terrible thing. Very much doubt that we can afford to renationalise them though.
Yes of course I know that. One of the nice lines of the book is that many of our key utilities are back in State hands. The French state! I raised it because Disco is one of those who like to bang on about sovereignty. So it appears that "sovereignty" means the right of a French state company to press ahead with imposing nuclear power on us, and the Nasty EU should not be allowed to ask them any questions about it. You couldn't make it up.
Labour could increase the minimum wage to aim at a living wage.
Isn't there the line of thought that increasing the minimum wage would in turn increase the living wage? Things would cost more to make/produce/sell etc?
There's an interesting thing about the "minimum wage". It's not a wage at all, in terms of being a weekly amount of money. It's just an hourly rate. I wonder, and it is just that, me wondering, whether the much-heralded introduction of the poorly described minimum wage was actually the driver for zero hour contracts because employers were uncertain about whether they could afford to pay a weekly wage at the higher rates? Unintended consequences, best intentions and all that.
I dunno, after the war Labour managed to creates the NHS, undertake a massive nationalisation programme, host the Olympics, introduce the country's first planing system and start development of the atom bomb. And those were days of real austerity.
We do live in a much more globalised world but there's lots Labour could do if it could grow some cajones. Instead of the stupid mansion tax it could extend Council tax bands; it could disincetivise second homes, increase the minimum wage to aim at a living wage. If it was really brave it could stop the ringfencing of the NHS and teh expense of everything else.
the world was a very different place back then.
Isn't there the line of thought that increasing the minimum wage would in turn increase the living wage? Things would cost more to make/produce/sell etc?
I dunno, after the war Labour managed to creates the NHS, undertake a massive nationalisation programme, host the Olympics, introduce the country's first planing system and start development of the atom bomb. And those were days of real austerity.
We do live in a much more globalised world but there's lots Labour could do if it could grow some cajones. Instead of the stupid mansion tax it could extend Council tax bands; it could disincetivise second homes, increase the minimum wage to aim at a living wage. If it was really brave it could stop the ringfencing of the NHS and teh expense of everything else.
the world was a very different place back then.
Isn't there the line of thought that increasing the minimum wage would in turn increase the living wage? Things would cost more to make/produce/sell etc?
Yeah, they said that in opposition to the introduction of the mimimum wage (and that jobs would be lost etc). It was proved wrong.
There are a few industries where prices would definately rise - supermarkets, fast food outlets and a few others. But things like housing costs will not.
I'd support the mimum wage going up by inflation plus 5% every year until it reached the living wage.
I dunno, after the war Labour managed to creates the NHS, undertake a massive nationalisation programme, host the Olympics, introduce the country's first planing system and start development of the atom bomb. And those were days of real austerity.
We do live in a much more globalised world but there's lots Labour could do if it could grow some cajones. Instead of the stupid mansion tax it could extend Council tax bands; it could disincetivise second homes, increase the minimum wage to aim at a living wage. If it was really brave it could stop the ringfencing of the NHS and teh expense of everything else.
the world was a very different place back then.
Isn't there the line of thought that increasing the minimum wage would in turn increase the living wage? Things would cost more to make/produce/sell etc?
Yeah, they said that in opposition to the introduction of the mimimum wage (and that jobs would be lost etc). It was proved wrong.
There are a few industries where prices would definately rise - supermarkets, fast food outlets and a few others. But things like housing costs will not.
I'd support the mimum wage going up by inflation plus 5% every year until it reached the living wage.
i'm pretty sure rising prices in supermarkets and places where you buy food would increase the living wage, ie the wage needed to live.
I dunno, after the war Labour managed to creates the NHS, undertake a massive nationalisation programme, host the Olympics, introduce the country's first planing system and start development of the atom bomb. And those were days of real austerity.
We do live in a much more globalised world but there's lots Labour could do if it could grow some cajones. Instead of the stupid mansion tax it could extend Council tax bands; it could disincetivise second homes, increase the minimum wage to aim at a living wage. If it was really brave it could stop the ringfencing of the NHS and teh expense of everything else.
The achievements you list in your first paragraph cannot really be claimed by Labour - there was a post-war cross-party consensus on all of those things and the Americans basically funded all of it thanks to the Marshall Plan and other global economic initiatives.
I agree with increasing the Council Tax bands over the Mansion Tax - which is frankly daft and even experts agree that it would either cost more to administrate than it would raise or the difference could be completely trivial in terms of benefit to the Treasury. At least Council Tax is means-tested and is set on local house prices rather than some daft national level where £2million may buy you a mansion in Stranraer but would get you a 2-bedroom flat in central London.
Regarding this discussion about the centralisation of UK Politics - there is no centre ground. Left-wing and right-wing are largly outdated concepts in the age of post neo-liberalism. Instead you have the economic and the social spectrums, where the spectrum goes from 'liberal' to 'authoritarian'. Labour are economically and socially authoritarian, Tories are economically liberal and socially authoritarian, LibDems are economically authoritarian but socially liberal and UKIP are economically liberal and on some issues socially liberal and other issues socially authoritarian. Most issues will have a consensus across at least 2 of the parties above. And some issues a party will take a stance on it depending on whether they're either in government or in opposition.
I dunno, after the war Labour managed to creates the NHS, undertake a massive nationalisation programme, host the Olympics, introduce the country's first planing system and start development of the atom bomb. And those were days of real austerity.
We do live in a much more globalised world but there's lots Labour could do if it could grow some cajones. Instead of the stupid mansion tax it could extend Council tax bands; it could disincetivise second homes, increase the minimum wage to aim at a living wage. If it was really brave it could stop the ringfencing of the NHS and teh expense of everything else.
The achievements you list in your first paragraph cannot really be claimed by Labour - there was a post-war cross-party consensus on all of those things and the Americans basically funded all of it thanks to the Marshall Plan and other global economic initiatives.
.
That's not true. The Tories vigorously opposed teh creation of the NHS (as did most doctors), the also opposed most nationalisation and most parts of the Town & Country Planning Act 1948. The atomic bomb development was secret but I'm sure Chruchill would have supported it.
The Marshall Plan was important but it didn't provide that much money (to the UK - about a £1billion over 3 years or half of the annual NHS funding) and didn't start until 1948.
I dunno, after the war Labour managed to creates the NHS, undertake a massive nationalisation programme, host the Olympics, introduce the country's first planing system and start development of the atom bomb. And those were days of real austerity.
We do live in a much more globalised world but there's lots Labour could do if it could grow some cajones. Instead of the stupid mansion tax it could extend Council tax bands; it could disincetivise second homes, increase the minimum wage to aim at a living wage. If it was really brave it could stop the ringfencing of the NHS and teh expense of everything else.
the world was a very different place back then.
Isn't there the line of thought that increasing the minimum wage would in turn increase the living wage? Things would cost more to make/produce/sell etc?
I dunno, after the war Labour managed to creates the NHS, undertake a massive nationalisation programme, host the Olympics, introduce the country's first planing system and start development of the atom bomb. And those were days of real austerity.
We do live in a much more globalised world but there's lots Labour could do if it could grow some cajones. Instead of the stupid mansion tax it could extend Council tax bands; it could disincetivise second homes, increase the minimum wage to aim at a living wage. If it was really brave it could stop the ringfencing of the NHS and teh expense of everything else.
The achievements you list in your first paragraph cannot really be claimed by Labour - there was a post-war cross-party consensus on all of those things and the Americans basically funded all of it thanks to the Marshall Plan and other global economic initiatives.
.
That's not true. The Tories vigorously opposed teh creation of the NHS (as did most doctors), the also opposed most nationalisation and most parts of the Town & Country Planning Act 1948. The atomic bomb development was secret but I'm sure Chruchill would have supported it.
The Marshall Plan was important but it didn't provide that much money (to the UK - about a £1billion over 3 years or half of the annual NHS funding) and didn't start until 1948.
Regarding this discussion about the centralisation of UK Politics - there is no centre ground. Left-wing and right-wing are largly outdated concepts in the age of post neo-liberalism. Instead you have the economic and the social spectrums, where the spectrum goes from 'liberal' to 'authoritarian'. Labour are economically and socially authoritarian, Tories are economically liberal and socially authoritarian, LibDems are economically authoritarian but socially liberal and UKIP are economically liberal and on some issues socially liberal and other issues socially authoritarian. Most issues will have a consensus across at least 2 of the parties above. And some issues a party will take a stance on it depending on whether they're either in government or in opposition.
Well you have certainly illustrated why in the UK it is difficult to establish a centre ground. Can you explain why in what you call the "age of post neo-liberalism" (WTF, BTW) all over Northern Europe there are parties of "the centre"? Or are they all far away countries of which we know little, and care less, which is the impression I get of your viewpoints?
I dunno, after the war Labour managed to creates the NHS, undertake a massive nationalisation programme, host the Olympics, introduce the country's first planing system and start development of the atom bomb. And those were days of real austerity.
We do live in a much more globalised world but there's lots Labour could do if it could grow some cajones. Instead of the stupid mansion tax it could extend Council tax bands; it could disincetivise second homes, increase the minimum wage to aim at a living wage. If it was really brave it could stop the ringfencing of the NHS and teh expense of everything else.
The achievements you list in your first paragraph cannot really be claimed by Labour - there was a post-war cross-party consensus on all of those things and the Americans basically funded all of it thanks to the Marshall Plan and other global economic initiatives.
.
That's not true. The Tories vigorously opposed teh creation of the NHS (as did most doctors), the also opposed most nationalisation and most parts of the Town & Country Planning Act 1948. The atomic bomb development was secret but I'm sure Chruchill would have supported it.
The Marshall Plan was important but it didn't provide that much money (to the UK - about a £1billion over 3 years or half of the annual NHS funding) and didn't start until 1948.
the opposition in opposition shock.
Indeed but then not the cross party consensuses that Fiish claimed existed so as to deny Labour credit for what it did in austerity.
I dunno, after the war Labour managed to creates the NHS, undertake a massive nationalisation programme, host the Olympics, introduce the country's first planing system and start development of the atom bomb. And those were days of real austerity.
We do live in a much more globalised world but there's lots Labour could do if it could grow some cajones. Instead of the stupid mansion tax it could extend Council tax bands; it could disincetivise second homes, increase the minimum wage to aim at a living wage. If it was really brave it could stop the ringfencing of the NHS and teh expense of everything else.
The achievements you list in your first paragraph cannot really be claimed by Labour - there was a post-war cross-party consensus on all of those things and the Americans basically funded all of it thanks to the Marshall Plan and other global economic initiatives.
.
That's not true. The Tories vigorously opposed teh creation of the NHS (as did most doctors)
Categorically not true, the NHS was a direct result of the recommendations of the Beveridge report which received cross-party support. In fact the Tories accepted the idea of a national health service once the report was published, the only reason why it took until 1946 to found the NHS was because of the small matter of the country fighting World War 2.
Regarding this discussion about the centralisation of UK Politics - there is no centre ground. Left-wing and right-wing are largly outdated concepts in the age of post neo-liberalism. Instead you have the economic and the social spectrums, where the spectrum goes from 'liberal' to 'authoritarian'. Labour are economically and socially authoritarian, Tories are economically liberal and socially authoritarian, LibDems are economically authoritarian but socially liberal and UKIP are economically liberal and on some issues socially liberal and other issues socially authoritarian. Most issues will have a consensus across at least 2 of the parties above. And some issues a party will take a stance on it depending on whether they're either in government or in opposition.
Well you have certainly illustrated why in the UK it is difficult to establish a centre ground. Can you explain why in what you call the "age of post neo-liberalism" (WTF, BTW) all over Northern Europe there are parties of "the centre"? Or are they all far away countries of which we know little, and care less, which is the impression I get of your viewpoints?
The key phrase in my post was 'UK Politics'. Can't really be compared to socialist-leaning France or Germany which is still dealing with the consequences of division and reunification following Soviet settlement.
I dunno, after the war Labour managed to creates the NHS, undertake a massive nationalisation programme, host the Olympics, introduce the country's first planing system and start development of the atom bomb. And those were days of real austerity.
We do live in a much more globalised world but there's lots Labour could do if it could grow some cajones. Instead of the stupid mansion tax it could extend Council tax bands; it could disincetivise second homes, increase the minimum wage to aim at a living wage. If it was really brave it could stop the ringfencing of the NHS and teh expense of everything else.
The achievements you list in your first paragraph cannot really be claimed by Labour - there was a post-war cross-party consensus on all of those things and the Americans basically funded all of it thanks to the Marshall Plan and other global economic initiatives.
.
That's not true. The Tories vigorously opposed teh creation of the NHS (as did most doctors)
Categorically not true, the NHS was a direct result of the recommendations of the Beveridge report which received cross-party support. In fact the Tories accepted the idea of a national health service once the report was published, the only reason why it took until 1946 to found the NHS was because of the small matter of the country fighting World War 2.
So why did the Tories vote against the formation of the NHS 21 times before the act was passed, including both the Second and Third reading?
Remember that prior to the '45 election there was a coalition government.
After that the parties had different policies. The liberals wanted an NHS (Beveridge was a liberal peer after all). Even the tories wanted better and wider health services but not a free at the point of delivery NHS. Hence why they voted against it so often.
Comments
We don't hear david cameron saying "the labour party want to destroy the economy" they say "the labour party's policies will destroy the economy", whilst mr miliband and co say "the tories would like nothing more to make the rich richer and the poor poorer". One appeals to reason, for you to take a look at the arguements and see if you agree, the other is a very emotive and provocative statement. I find this kind of argument in a democratic society rather uncomfortable and dangerous. It's also why i find russell brand's arguments and his supporters rather dangerous. I see comments on his parklife parody of a parody video saying cameron will be "Swinging from the tower" and those that oppose brand will "be the ones sweeping the street" after the "revolution". I would rather live in a world where there are rich and poor than one where everyones poor and the rich are being hung.
Come to think of it, "Borgen" depicted a party of " the centre" and showed how damn difficult it can be. I'd vote for Brigitte Nyborg all day long.
Privatisation of natural monopolies was a terrible thing. Very much doubt that we can afford to renationalise them though.
Interesting on Ed and Labour's problems
well, don't they? Are taxes an "emotive" issue?
We do live in a much more globalised world but there's lots Labour could do if it could grow some cajones. Instead of the stupid mansion tax it could extend Council tax bands; it could disincetivise second homes, increase the minimum wage to aim at a living wage. If it was really brave it could stop the ringfencing of the NHS and teh expense of everything else.
Isn't there the line of thought that increasing the minimum wage would in turn increase the living wage? Things would cost more to make/produce/sell etc?
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014.html
There are a few industries where prices would definately rise - supermarkets, fast food outlets and a few others. But things like housing costs will not.
I'd support the mimum wage going up by inflation plus 5% every year until it reached the living wage.
I agree with increasing the Council Tax bands over the Mansion Tax - which is frankly daft and even experts agree that it would either cost more to administrate than it would raise or the difference could be completely trivial in terms of benefit to the Treasury. At least Council Tax is means-tested and is set on local house prices rather than some daft national level where £2million may buy you a mansion in Stranraer but would get you a 2-bedroom flat in central London.
Regarding this discussion about the centralisation of UK Politics - there is no centre ground. Left-wing and right-wing are largly outdated concepts in the age of post neo-liberalism. Instead you have the economic and the social spectrums, where the spectrum goes from 'liberal' to 'authoritarian'. Labour are economically and socially authoritarian, Tories are economically liberal and socially authoritarian, LibDems are economically authoritarian but socially liberal and UKIP are economically liberal and on some issues socially liberal and other issues socially authoritarian. Most issues will have a consensus across at least 2 of the parties above. And some issues a party will take a stance on it depending on whether they're either in government or in opposition.
That's not true. The Tories vigorously opposed teh creation of the NHS (as did most doctors), the also opposed most nationalisation and most parts of the Town & Country Planning Act 1948. The atomic bomb development was secret but I'm sure Chruchill would have supported it.
The Marshall Plan was important but it didn't provide that much money (to the UK - about a £1billion over 3 years or half of the annual NHS funding) and didn't start until 1948.
Indeed but then not the cross party consensuses that Fiish claimed existed so as to deny Labour credit for what it did in austerity.
Remember that prior to the '45 election there was a coalition government.
After that the parties had different policies. The liberals wanted an NHS (Beveridge was a liberal peer after all). Even the tories wanted better and wider health services but not a free at the point of delivery NHS. Hence why they voted against it so often.