Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.

Moving to the Right

2»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ...because Labour were lucky enough to inherit a strong economic foundation put in place by the Tories. The wheels are starting to come off a bit now though.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Rich Kid wrote:
    Is this a foreboding as to what might happen in Britain next time round?

    America kept their right wing leader in power, how come we didn't vote Howard in then at this election...English politics will not be influenced by German politics, or even worse, the politics in the Rhineland...i think you need to get your head out of the clouds sonny boy...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Rich Kid wrote:
    ...because Labour were lucky enough to inherit a strong economic foundation put in place by the Tories. The wheels are starting to come off a bit now though.

    and it took the tories 15 years to implement those...remember '79...labour isnb't working slogan by the tories with the long queues in it...a few years after that unemployment was 3 million under thatcher...who do you trust?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    its true that the Conservatives under Tatcher helped revive the economy. but you also have to consider that probably the main reason why she was reelected in the 80s was because of the Falklands war. theres hardly a leader in history that lost an election when there is an ongoing war. the Right favours the economy because of it market policies but increase in wealth was in the expense of the working class which many hated the tatcher government.

    you should also know that in the 80s after the defeat from the tatcher conservative, the labout party split into the sdp and labour. the sdp move to the left and under blari the labour party moved towards the centre left. if you look at the two parties you can clearly see which ideology appeals to more people. there are few people on the left, and a few on the right and everybody else is in the middle. and that was the success of new labour. unless people are polarised to one side by some event, people will generally be moderate.

    blah im tired of typing.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Rich Kid wrote:
    ...because Labour were lucky enough to inherit a strong economic foundation put in place by the Tories. .
    strong economic foundation = millions unemployed or persuaded onto invalidity benefits ...hundreds of thosands homeless ...house reposessions at a record high ...collapsing hospitals schools etc ...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    its true that the Conservatives under Tatcher helped revive the economy. but you also have to consider that probably the main reason why she was reelected in the 80s was because of the Falklands war. theres hardly a leader in history that lost an election when there is an ongoing war.

    the Right favours the economy because of it market policies but increase in wealth was in the expense of the working class which many hated the tatcher government.

    under blari the labour party moved towards the centre left.

    thatcher helped revived the economy :confused: 80's were the decade of boom and bust...it wasn't a secure economy like we have now (though i fear thats gonna go aswell)

    so whats better, you being rich and millions poor, or everyone basically having the same...this is where you fall into two category's, either a decent human being or a cold hearted bastard, i know many on here that fall into the latter

    blair? blair didn't become leader till 1994...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    turlough wrote:
    thatcher helped revived the economy :confused: 80's were the decade of boom and bust...it wasn't a secure economy like we have now (though i fear thats gonna go aswell)

    blair? blair didn't become leader till 1994...

    blair didnt come til 94 but hes responsible for new labour.

    despite the boom and bust, the tatcher government did improve the economy, which because of the coal miners strikes were in pieces then. like i said the improvement though came at the cost of the working class (the unions were weakend etc) which is a shame because they are the base of any society and even though under new labour the economy has stabilised, you cannot ignore the fact that it was in better shape when they came into power than when the first tatcher government came into power.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    despite the boom and bust, the tatcher government did improve the economy, which because of the coal miners strikes were in pieces then. like i said the improvement though came at the cost of the working class (the unions were weakend etc) which is a shame because they are the base of any society and even though under new labour the economy has stabilised, you cannot ignore the fact that it was in better shape when they came into power than when the first tatcher government came into power.

    nah i prefer the whig interpretation of events ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    turlough wrote:
    nah i prefer the whig interpretation of events ;)
    then youre blinded by own bias my friend. and so long as you cant see the facts on both sides youre view of politics is negligible.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Rich Kid wrote:
    Socialism is...a high-taxing, non-delivery system

    So that's why Deutsche Bahn and SNCF (publicly owned) are excellent train services, modern, cheap, clean and fast, whereas in the UK I get to pay £60 a week to sit on a train that is nothinhg more than a very old Leyland bus on train wheels.

    K.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    then youre blinded by own bias my friend. and so long as you cant see the facts on both sides youre view of politics is negligible.

    :lol: calm down my good man...if i was being serious i would have left the wink out
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    So that's why Deutsche Bahn and SNCF (publicly owned) are excellent train services, modern, cheap, clean and fast, whereas in the UK I get to pay £60 a week to sit on a train that is nothinhg more than a very old Leyland bus on train wheels.

    K.
    I believe it was the wrong time and the wrong way to privatise British Rail, John Major-Minor made a complete mess of it and has got a lot to answer for. We've ended up with a complete hotch potch of a railway system that has suffered from under investment for years - why? - because the unions put an ancient out-of-date employment structure before investment and a sound future, once more the dinosaurs held back progress.
    Yes no-one would disagree that the German & French railways are excellent but they come at a price, huge subsidies from the State, and the question is how long can they continue to be funded this way, some say not for too much longer.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's not a subsidy, it's STATE OWNED, twat.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Rich Kid wrote:
    some say not for too much longer.

    some say it's the way to go....
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    turlough wrote:
    :lol: calm down my good man...if i was being serious i would have left the wink out

    oh... okay. we cool. we cool. :blush: :thumb:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Rich Kid wrote:
    huge subsidies from the State, and the question is how long can they continue to be funded this way, some say not for too much longer.

    So that'd be the British system then, where huge amounts of cash go into the pockets of the companies who own the trains and charge exorbitant rents to the TOCs.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    nah i prefer the whig interpretation of events

    Come on then, explain what the Whig interpretation of history is.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Come on then, explain what the Whig interpretation of history is.

    inevitability
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote:
    It's not a subsidy, it's STATE OWNED, twat.

    You that sure they cover thier own costs?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    inevitability

    Of what? I want more than that.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    so do I.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    losers
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Rich Kid wrote:
    I believe it was the wrong time and the wrong way to privatise British Rail, John Major-Minor made a complete mess of it and has got a lot to answer for. We've ended up with a complete hotch potch of a railway system that has suffered from under investment for years - why? - because the unions put an ancient out-of-date employment structure before investment and a sound future, once more the dinosaurs held back progress.
    Yes no-one would disagree that the German & French railways are excellent but they come at a price, huge subsidies from the State, and the question is how long can they continue to be funded this way, some say not for too much longer.

    As I remember it, my very first post on this board was on the subject of the railways, making the point that private enterprise built them badly in the first place and proved incapable of investing adequately in them. British Rail, despite being top-heavy, vulnerable to the whims of government and chronically mismanaged for its first couple of decades, actually did a pretty good job in the '70s and '80s - only for Tory dogma and free market bullshit to wreck it all. The best railways in the world are all state run, or at least have/had a high degree of state involvement in building and operation. Railways are a public good, and need to be managed as such, not as a profit-making exercise. It really is that simple.

    Having said that, I now wish I hadn't since I'm busy and I've no time to get into a debate... :o
Sign In or Register to comment.