Mrs Thatcher - rather different from todays politicians
Discussion
Baryonyx said:
Which is what she deserves.
Really ?I rather suspect the UK was in a much better state in 1990
when she left office, than in 1979, when she started in office.
Compare and contrast the industrial unrest, three day weeks,
going cap in hand to the IMF, rampant inflation and power cuts
of the 1970s with the relatively affluent years of the 1980s.
Loathe her or merely despise her, I think it is almost certainly
the case that she was a better PM than Brown, Blair, Major, Callaghan,
Heath and Wilson.
dcb said:
Really ?
I rather suspect the UK was in a much better state in 1990
when she left office, than in 1979, when she started in office.
Compare and contrast the industrial unrest, three day weeks,
going cap in hand to the IMF, rampant inflation and power cuts
of the 1970s with the relatively affluent years of the 1980s.
Loathe her or merely despise her, I think it is almost certainly
the case that she was a better PM than Brown, Blair, Major, Callaghan,
Heath and Wilson.
You are entering a multi-page argument about miners, strikes, coal production stats, and the like. Are you prepared? I rather suspect the UK was in a much better state in 1990
when she left office, than in 1979, when she started in office.
Compare and contrast the industrial unrest, three day weeks,
going cap in hand to the IMF, rampant inflation and power cuts
of the 1970s with the relatively affluent years of the 1980s.
Loathe her or merely despise her, I think it is almost certainly
the case that she was a better PM than Brown, Blair, Major, Callaghan,
Heath and Wilson.
TheHeretic said:
dcb said:
Really ?
<rambling digression snipped>
You are entering a multi-page argument about miners, strikes, coal production stats, and the like. Are you prepared? <rambling digression snipped>
t, to be fair. guards red said:
Worst PM this country ever had.
I'm not sure about that. She did something very few politicians do now, she told it like it is. And wasn't afraid to be disliked because of this. She came into politics to do the right thing as she saw it, because there was very rarely any fence sitting. The reason people admire her is because she is the very antithesis of the modern, cardboard cut out, common purpose career politician. When I hear Clegg and Cameron talk its just noise, they haven't even got an opinion on anything that's of thier own determination, unless its more government, more enquiries etc. Proper group think, no wonder they love the eu, how many of these career politicians have ever had thier own business or even understand how real life works?. Pathetic when you think about it.
dandarez said:
eldar said:
Derek Smith said:
What was so great about Churchill?
He lead the winning team.Almost without exception everyone was confidently predicting he would lead the Tories to a resounding victory in 1945 GE.
His approval ratings throughout the war never dipped below around 70 per cent.
Just prior to the General Election his ratings had risen to almost mid 80s per cent in the opinion polls.
What happened?
Labour had a massive landslide victory.
So regardless of any reasons given, and there were and have been masses of them, the public at that point in time obviously had a drastically different view.
thinfourth2 said:
Ozzie Osmond said:
It seems to me Thatcher did actually stand for something, whether or not everyone agreed with her.
What does "call me Dave" stand for?
a) The Big Society? (WTF)
b) Trying to please all of the people all of the time? (Hopeless)
c) Both of the above?
He stands for getting CMD re-elected so he can help out his buddiesWhat does "call me Dave" stand for?
a) The Big Society? (WTF)
b) Trying to please all of the people all of the time? (Hopeless)
c) Both of the above?
Borrow even more money
No more spending cuts
Employ a million more public sector workers
Give all Public sector workers a pay rise
Cut income tax
Cut VAT
easy peasy. Now I wonder why he doesn't do that? Perhaps, crazy thought I know, but just maybe he is trying to get the UK economy back on its feet in very difficult global economic circumstances.
I am rather curious regarding the debates surrounding Blair vs Thatcher in the better leadership stakes...
In terms of the overall potential commitments and consequences of a war outcome, who had the harder military/leadership decisions to make? Thatcher or Blair?
Also, as the years are now slipping into what is now considered recent history, of the two, who fared 'better', in terms of reputation and overall leadership impression?
In terms of the overall potential commitments and consequences of a war outcome, who had the harder military/leadership decisions to make? Thatcher or Blair?
Also, as the years are now slipping into what is now considered recent history, of the two, who fared 'better', in terms of reputation and overall leadership impression?
drivin_me_nuts said:
I am rather curious regarding the debates surrounding Blair vs Thatcher in the better leadership stakes...
In terms of the overall potential commitments and consequences of a war outcome, who had the harder military/leadership decisions to make? Thatcher or Blair?
Also, as the years are now slipping into what is now considered recent history, of the two, who fared 'better', in terms of reputation and overall leadership impression?
Well Blair was part of a Coalition. The Falklands was essentially a solo job, and an incredible undertaking. In terms of the overall potential commitments and consequences of a war outcome, who had the harder military/leadership decisions to make? Thatcher or Blair?
Also, as the years are now slipping into what is now considered recent history, of the two, who fared 'better', in terms of reputation and overall leadership impression?
As for 'faired better' it depends on where the viewer stands. You'll get both viewpoints. As for balls and leadership, Thatcher.
Crafty_ said:
Derek Smith said:
What was so great about Churchill?
Seriously ?To take Thatcher, she too made a number of mistakes but she was for most of her term one of the luckiest PMs we had. Remember that the tories dropped to third in the polls, with the SDP taking the lead with over 40% of the vote. Had the gang of three and David Steel gone on to govern, as they possibly could, then we would not have had Blair.
The Argentinians established Thatcher as a national hero, and for good reason. Then, not satisfied with her not being liked by everyone, the PIRA decided to show her at her best. Her appearance on the steps of the damaged Grand made my back tingle. Absolutely brilliant. The terrorists must have realised then that they had failed in their objective in many more ways than one.
But she squandered the money from North Sea Oil and the sale of the household silver. When she dabbled in politics she was normally very poor, with money going to the City in quantity without any return, the sale of shares to big business for a pittance, the selling off of council houses with the intent to get a house-owning, conservative voting majority. And then Poll Tax, possibly for the same reason.
Against that Churchill was more or less the same.
The myth put around of the majority of the working class believing in Chruchill hit him in the elections of 1945. We got then a PM who brought us through the worst financial crisis that this country was ever in, including nowadays. But again, Atlee led a good team so perhaps that put him on par with Chruchill in that sense.
Thatcher led a dreadful team. That was another weakness, and one that cost her her post.
My grandmother hated Churchill, viewing him as a war monger. His grandioise plans cost lives of the chidlren of her friends. She felt he had little concern for the merchant navy. But he was out leader when Germany surrendered and therefore should take something of that. Whether his leadership meant anything is in doubt.
Caulkhead said:
Fortunately the public realised what idiots they were being and tossed out labour at the first opportunity and re-elected Churchill in 1951 until his retirement in 1955.
That is wrong. Labour, under Atlee, were the party of thrift. He reduced the rations once the war ended and did so again. He took the very difficult decision to ration bread, something that his advisors suggested was impossible. He laid plans to send children out into the fields - the father of a friend of mine was the civil servant in charge of the plans. Sweets were still rationed at the end of his tenure.Churchill on the other hand promised an end to rationing. The start of the boom/bust years.
Further, at the first opportunity, the public re-elected Atlee.
Edited to add: Don't forget that Atlee had a major role in the government under Churchill. He ran the civil service and was Churchill's #2.
Edited by Derek Smith on Friday 28th December 18:14
JensenA said:
thinfourth2 said:
Ozzie Osmond said:
It seems to me Thatcher did actually stand for something, whether or not everyone agreed with her.
What does "call me Dave" stand for?
a) The Big Society? (WTF)
b) Trying to please all of the people all of the time? (Hopeless)
c) Both of the above?
He stands for getting CMD re-elected so he can help out his buddiesWhat does "call me Dave" stand for?
a) The Big Society? (WTF)
b) Trying to please all of the people all of the time? (Hopeless)
c) Both of the above?
Borrow even more money
No more spending cuts
Employ a million more public sector workers
Give all Public sector workers a pay rise
Cut income tax
Cut VAT
easy peasy. Now I wonder why he doesn't do that? Perhaps, crazy thought I know, but just maybe he is trying to get the UK economy back on its feet in very difficult global economic circumstances.
You really think Dave cares more for the economy than he does for re-election?
Edited by Victor McDade on Friday 28th December 18:48
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff