Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

blair 3rd term

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey



Above i have pin pointed the exact text where you argued your case against with anything other than opinion. There is no argument, you can talk about the bad times when Thatcher tried to be Hitler, well thats what im told. That does not proove that Blair is better. Saying whats worse doesn't make bad times better.




posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by shorty
Above i have pin pointed the exact text where you argued your case against with anything other than opinion.


-
. Very funny.



There is no argument, you can talk about the bad times when Thatcher tried to be Hitler, well thats what im told. That does not proove that Blair is better.


- Of course an opinion does not make anything better or worse. I have never said otherwise.

I have talked about comparable records though and this is, surely, the (very) fair point.

Labour's record in government is - for most people - far superior to the last (4) tory government(s) 1979 - 1997.

Unemployment is far far below the level of the last tory gov. They had it above 3million (10%) twice it is now under 1million (around 4%). Correspondingly employment is far far higher too 2 million jobs created since 1997.

Central Bank interest rates were 12% for over a year peaking at 15%; customer rates on martgages were much higher.

Etc etc.

If you think (uniquely?) that the record of each party in government is no reasonable comparison what is then?!


Saying whats worse doesn't make bad times better.


- I have never said we have reached nirvana.

Whatever Labour's faults (and I think there are more than a few) the idea that the alternative tory policies are 'better' is risible.

.....and sadly given the UK's electoral system they are - for now - the only credible realistic opposition. If the Lib-Dems show strongly enough this time they stand a chance of becoming the real opposition following the election after this one. Shame and all but there you are that is an effect of our 'first past the post' system.



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 03:46 PM
link   
I would like to point out thoe following loud and real clear. There is no Laour party, there is only New Labour. Why is the reavlivent? Because alot of the older genaration still stand by there Labour ideas but the Labour that was for the working class is gone. A large problem is there is no clear defintion between NL and Labour. I am not calling OAP stupid but maybe less in tune to modern times. Theres proof in that how many people above 65 have a P.C (please dont all start posting saying im over 65 and have a P.C your a minority) there not living in the same time as us but they did live through Thatcher which is why most oldys dont vote Con. Labour died when Blair got in.

Blair is a American puppet, a lap dog and he will follow Bush to the ends of the Earth or more accurately to the end of the Earth!

You can't use a partys record to judge how good they are because times are always changeing. We'r almost in the middle of WW3 as it is. Violent crimes on the increase and gun crime. Its not just that Blair cant handle it its that Blair caused it.



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by shorty
I would like to point out thoe following loud and real clear. There is no Laour party, there is only New Labour. Why is the reavlivent? Because alot of the older genaration still stand by there Labour ideas but the Labour that was for the working class is gone.


- Yeah. If you say so. And. What?

Labour whether it be 'new' or what is much more akin to a European Social Democrat party.
Good, in my view.

'Old Labour' failed. New Labour is a proven winner; that is why tories hate it.
As for the 'old left'? They have always hated anything that wasn't ideologically 'pure' enough for them; they prefer to remain unelectable and pontificate in their impotent 'purity' never having to make the actual compromises real power demands. Zzzzzzzzzzz.

So, left and right don't like 'new Labour' yet it keeps winning elections....hmmmm, seems to me like that might not be so terrible afterall.


A large problem is there is no clear defintion between NL and Labour.


- Er, that seems a little contradictory with your last point.


I am not calling OAP stupid but maybe less in tune to modern times. Theres proof in that how many people above 65 have a P.C (please dont all start posting saying im over 65 and have a P.C your a minority) there not living in the same time as us but they did live through Thatcher which is why most oldys dont vote Con.


- LMAO!
Glad to hear you're not for insulting people over 65.


.....and there's nothin like making silly sweeping statements, huh?
(no, I'm not 65, yet & won't be for quite a while thanks for asking. How about you? Old enough to vote yet?
)

You really think the time of the last tory government was something people only over 65 would have experienced and remebered?!


That's very very funny.

By the way.... how is the tory (conservative!) party in any way 'progressive' and appealing to the young?


Especially as Thatcher has determined their policies (in every meaningful way) ever since.

.....oh, and your implication that 'new Labour' is too right-wing so it is reasonable to then vote tory - an even more right-wing party - is strange to say the least.


Labour died when Blair got in.


- Yeah, you think? Oh well.

Those of us that actually prefer a Labour gov will no doubt cry our eyes out at the thought the Labour party had the terrible audacity to become - and remain - electable.



Blair is a American puppet, a lap dog and he will follow Bush to the ends of the Earth or more accurately to the end of the Earth!


- If you say so. So you don't have any comment on Blair not destroying the atlantic alliance.....because of Bush
?!


You can't use a partys record to judge how good they are because times are always changeing.


- Sorry but this is just ludicrous.

One of the most meaningful and significant things we have with political parties is a parties' record in office.

When times have changed and the party clearly hasn't and are still spouting identical or nearly identical 'remedies' for the national ills I think we have every right to look back and take into account what a disaster those very similar policies were the last time they tried to make them work here.


We'r almost in the middle of WW3 as it is.


- I'm no fan of the war myself but come on.

No we're not.

Slight exaggeration or what?!



Violent crimes on the increase and gun crime.


- Hmmm, so you have to zoom in on two areas to make a silly scare story about a 'rising tide' yet you prefer to ignore the fact that these remain at a low level.

There is a very low level of gun crime in the UK. Even if it were to double it would still remain a small level of gun crime....you get the idea?

I'll agree violent crime is something everyone thinks is endemic but I don't think that is the case.


Its not just that Blair cant handle it its that Blair caused it.


- This I must hear. Come on then. How?

Crime is down and living standards are up.....how is this responsible for rising gun crime and violence?



[edit on 9-11-2004 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Firstly i dont see the contraction myself. No im not old enough to vote. 13.

I was not implieing that only peopl over 65 remember Thatcher im saying that they remember her and they remember the good ol' days with Labour. Not a good age to be.

You dont think we are in the middle of world war three? Well in WW2 and 1 we had two clear forces the allies the axis, black and white but now we dont. It doesn't mean we are not at a state of WW. over a third of the planet is at war. Thats pretty much a world war.

You say that the party record matters. It doesn't, NL proof. People voted them in on there previous record and look where it got us.

Why do you think im pro-tory? Im not. If i was to vote my vote would be either respect and yes i admit it UKIP but i still think there over rated. Just like NL.

So what silly sweeping remark are you talking about? Im the one making silly statements, im not starting every paragraph "yeah, you think? oh well"

How did Blair cause crime? IMO if he hadn't put the whole of England in oh no we'r being attacked by terrorists mode then Engalnd wouldn't be so tense. We are constanly in a state of high alert since 9.11 this courses problems and stress.



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by shorty
Firstly i dont see the contraction myself.


- well you seem to make a big distinction between new and old Labour and then later say there wasn't one.


No im not old enough to vote. 13.


- No crime in that, just not a lot of experience.


I was not implieing that only peopl over 65 remember Thatcher im saying that they remember her and they remember the good ol' days with Labour.


- Hmmm, ok but you might care to know the Labour gov of 1974 -1979 was beset by problems. It was the time of the 'oil shocks' (1973) where oil trebled in price. It certainly wasn't 'the good old days'.....why do you think the torys got an 18yr run after it?


Not a good age to be.


- more than half way over your life is never going to be that good matey!


You dont think we are in the middle of world war three?


- No really I don't, not at all. I think the very idea is a total exaggeration and manipulation of the truth of what a WW is like or about.

I think this is the kind of ridiculous thing people are encouraged to think when most of us are fortunate enough to have no idea whatsoever of what a real WW is actually like.

That's not to say that if we keep making a sh*thouse of it it couldn't get that bad, but I just think it's very unlikely even so. Just my opinion.


Well in WW2 and 1 we had two clear forces the allies the axis, black and white but now we dont.


- Exactly. In my view the idea that anyone is opposing us to the degree where you can honestly say it is 'WW3' is absurd.


It doesn't mean we are not at a state of WW. over a third of the planet is at war. Thats pretty much a world war.


- Well sorry but I do not believe that a third of the world is actually 'at war' with us or for that matter anyone.


You say that the party record matters. It doesn't, NL proof. People voted them in on there previous record and look where it got us.


- No. Funnily enough 'NL' was voted in because of the out-going tory gov's record because it was so desparatley appalling for most and because Labour had become 'new', stopped being 'old' and made serious promises not to raise the rates of income tax.


Why do you think im pro-tory? Im not. If i was to vote my vote would be either respect and yes i admit it UKIP


- OK, so heading way out to the right of the tories then? Ok. Free country.

No doubt you must have found the Robert Kilroy-Silk story funny. The man lives in Spain and (re)launched his political 'career' with Joan Collins a ex-pat living in the USA who claimed no political knowledge!


but i still think there over rated. Just like NL.


- Well we're all still free to our opinions.


So what silly sweeping remark are you talking about?


- You commented about over 65's being IT illiterate.....I don't think that is especially accurate....and, lets not forget, what with the UK being well 'PC'd up' now, over time becoming less and less accurate. I know more than a few with PC's, laptops etc into emailing and all that.


Im the one making silly statements, im not starting every paragraph "yeah, you think? oh well"


- Well I could just put 'I don't agree' but it can get a bit repetitive.

It's way too dry otherwise, it's not all serious y'know?


How did Blair cause crime? IMO if he hadn't put the whole of England in oh no we'r being attacked by terrorists mode then Engalnd wouldn't be so tense. We are constanly in a state of high alert since 9.11 this courses problems and stress.


- You think?! Oh come on. You have got to be kidding. Maybe it is because of your age?

Don't you know a serious and very real 'terrorist threat' - with many many murderously lethal 'events'....bombings, shootings, kidnappings, robberies etc etc - has existed in the UK for over 90yrs thanks to the problems in Ireland?

But most people lived their lives as normal because the chances of personally being caught up in a terrorist attack were minimal.....and Irish terrorism was far more real than just 'threats' or 'possibility'!

Naaaaa. No way. Some Brits might be such lame and limp pussies but all the people I know find the idea that 'we are at war' and under any real kind of actual threat, a gross and laughable exaggeration.



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 05:39 AM
link   
sminkey watch your steps... your treading on soft ice.
dont fall in.
one thing i want to know is WHY old labour failed?
i mean they set the foundations for everything new labour stands for.



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
sminkey watch your steps... your treading on soft ice.
dont fall in.
one thing i want to know is WHY old labour failed?
i mean they set the foundations for everything new labour stands for.


- It's OK Devil, just a to and fro on views. I don't speak for anyone but myself.

Oh there's no question about a relationship between 'new' and 'old' Devil. Of course one flows from the other - all political parties evolve in one way or another, or should do if they wish to remain relevant and successful.

I think the reason 'old Labour' failed was for pretty much the same reason the current 'old tories' are failing.

It's also why UKIP stand little hope as they are. They are too ideological. Too theoretical, too abstract, it puts people off.

They have central elements of policy and a track record that just worries, scares or provokes hostility in people.

For example, old Labour had it with what was known as 'clause 4' and the objective to achieve 'the common ownership of the means of production'. Some (many, most?) saw this as a worthy aim or theory but unworkable and impracticle in the real world. It indicated an over-riding instinct for public ownership and always perceiving public ownership - in almost all cases - as superior to private ownership no matter what.

(It was to take until 1994 and 4 electoral defeats to remove this particular piece of party dogma)

The tory party have this instinct in reverse. Their 'default' position is that no matter what private ownership is almost always superior to public, with very very few exceptions, no matter what.

It is clear that the UK public find each extreme position unpalitable.

I also think there is some kind of self-limiting factor at work here too. When parties try to get too 'radical' it tends to put UK voters off. (IMHO the UK is actually a very - small 'c' - conservative country.

OK, (if you can stand it) heres a short potted history as I saw/see it......

Old Labour in the mid 1970's attempted to be quite radical with a program of quite progressive (for its day) public spending projects.

But with a background of oil prices trebling, prices rocketing as a result, high inflation (just over 26% annually at it's peak), rising unemployment and industrial unrest as workers tried to maintain their wage values many voters saw this as a mess of the gov's own making. The worst years being '75 - 77.

It culminated with the left (the ideologically pure zealots) insisting on bringing everything down over the winter of 1978-79....the so-called 'winter of discontent'; basically in a game of Russian roulette that back-fired on them, they went for all or nothing and got nothing, for 18yrs.

Ably assisted by a sustaines press effort intent on seeing the return of a tory gov - especially one in the mould of Thatcher's version of it - 'old Labour' lost the may 1979 election, not by a landslide, Mrs T got a majority of 43.

In the period 1979 - 1983 'old Labour' had quite a tussle culminating in Michael Foot being elected leader. Michael Foot is and was a great political writer and thinker in the UK. He was one of the first to write about the coming dangers of Hitler back in the 1930's (it wasn't just Churchill!).

Anyhoo because he had an old appearance and did not fit the 'smart suit and tie' mould he was subject to a sustained campaign of personal villification in the press (Murdock bought into the UK press in 1981).

But Mrs Thatch was on the verge of being ejected until april 1982 and the Falklands war came along. She was in the 20% range of the polls and stuck there for months, clearly on her way out after one term. This was as a result of the biggest, longest and most damaging recession since the 1930's. Mrs T was following the 'monetarist' theories of Milton Friedman and keeping the value of the artificially high with very high interest rates. It was disasterous. It has been estimated that 20% of the UK's manufacturing capacity was destroyed. 3million people were once again unemployed for the first time in the UK since the 1930's economic collapse.

(Oh, and for the 'inflation fanatics' it peaked under Mrs T at 22% following the 1979 oil price rise shoch....it doubled that time)

Handily enough the Falklands war (even according to memoirs of the Argentinians involved) was a war provoked by the announcement to remove the patrol ship HMS Endurance.....Thatch & Co. had been warned a war might happen as it had been threatened when plans to withdraw the ship had been discussed before in the 1970's. But nevertheless she went ahead and that was handy for her huh?

Also of huge significance was the departure of several senior figures seen to be then on the Labour 'right'. They believed the Labour party was moving too far to the left and walked out to form the SDP (Social Democratic Party). This party formed an alliance with the Liberal party and was thought at the time to have 'broken the mould' of British politics. They polled over 50%(!) at their peak.

So, Mrs T walked the 1983 election (144 majority). The Liberal/SDP saga had helped split the anti-tory vote significantly and Michael Foot stepped down. Neil Kinnick became Labour leader and the move to 'new Labour' began in earnest. Kinnock took on the so-called 'hard left' within the Labour party and gave them the boot, quite sucessfully and introduced greater democracy within the party.

The great schism in UK politics of the 80's was, of course, the Miner's strike.

This was (rather skillfully) portrayed by almost all of the UK press as a fight between commie trades unionists and the duly elected gov. The claims of the miners regarding the devastation they and their industry were facing were painted as ludicrously exaggerated (.....and many, most, uninvolved people believed this, the claims seemed so fantasticly OTT; time was to eventually show however they were actually woefully conservative and far from the truth. The Coal Board and Thatcher's gov's plans were far more brutal than Arthur Scargill & Co could ever have imagined. ).

Anyhoo Thatch & Co were determined to win the strike and win they did using the Police in a (political) manner never seen before in this country. People went along with it because they bought into the idea of the alternative being some kind of commie Trade union/hard left anarchy.

Labour's official support for the strike had been low-key so that really helped too. The 'you're too lefty' tag was very corrosive and worried them disproportionately.


The 1987 election took place with a clear economic recovery going on. Some people started to believe the nonsense the press were telling them that the UK economy was just on the verge of over-taking Germanys.
Headlines like 'your house price increasing by an average of 57 per day! helped foster a mood of optimism (particularly after the early 80's recession) and Thatch & gang got in again (majority 100).

Then things started to go wrong.

The stock market crashed massively on black monday (oct 19) with a full 10% wiped off of values; coming 2 days after the storm of the century it felt like someone was trying to tell us something!

The slide into the next recession had started following Thatcher & chancellor Lawson refusing to apply the economic brakes in time - particularly in relation to housing. 'Double MIRAS' was encouraging people to buy regardless of their real ability to afford as it was believed that house prices would just continue to accelerate away from most people's ability to afford them. Japanese style 'inheritable' mortgages were claimed to be on the way soon.

In just about the worst circumstances possible senior tories persuade Thatcher to join the ERM (the European exchange rate mechanism, a preparitory move for monetary union).

Kinnock continued to reshape the Labour party and turn it round. The 3rd defeat running had been hard to take but given the seemingly improving economic back-drop not unexpected.

The tories ditched Mrs T when it became clear that she was going ga-ga ('we' are a grandmother) and had become an electoral liability and installed John Major. Seemingly he was a tory who was 'an ordinary guy' (hey, I was unemployed for months too, you know!) and definitely not Thatcher and not going to persue a Thatcherite course.

The public went for Mr 'I'm not Thatcher' Joh Major but only just. 1992 majority 21.

In his attempts to stop the collapsing Major & Co had to raise interest rates higher and higher. The the housing market collapsed as many found their mortgages had become too expensive to bear. Even those people who could keep up their payments found that they had borrowed heavily on an enormous mortgage but their house now had a value that was significantly below the debt owed on the mortgage.

(some people thought they could simply hand back the keys to their bank or building society.....who then auctioned off the house for an even lower value and - in some cases - many years later came looking for the balance owed. For some that meant being handed a bill for 30 000, 40 000, 50 000 or 60 000+ with no prospect of ever being able to pay that off.

( This is not ancient history, this happened only 10yrs ago. )

John Major presided over the 2nd worst post-war recession with 3 million unemployed once again (except that due to the number of changes to the manner in which the statistic was formed it wasn't 3 million. The UK civil Service's own internal 'old' statistic said it was closer to 4.5million), record home repossessions and mortgage rates.

(Inflation peaked at 11% under Major.)

Following the defeat of 1992 the Labour party went into shock.
Kinnock resigned and John Smith took over as leader. Smith continued the moves toward a more centrist Labour party (introducing one-member one-vote through-out the membership) until his untimely death in 1994.

Tony Blair was elected Labour leader in 1994.

He led Labour to a post-war record landslide in 1997 and the 2nd largest post-war landslide in 2001.

(....and one last time for the inflation fanatics, under Labour since 1997 inflation has never been above 3.5% and is averaging under 2.5%)


[edit on 10-11-2004 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 11:19 AM
link   
When didn't i say there wasn't a old Labour?



- You commented about over 65's being IT illiterate


No i didn't. I said that not as many people over 65 have computers.



- You think?! Oh come on. You have got to be kidding. Maybe it is because of your age?


I know a real terrorist threat when i see one, i was at school when the word of the towers came over. I watched it on live T.V, anyone who saw that knows exactly what a terrorist are (MAYBE) capable of. And yb the remark above about my age. Age has nothing to do with it. You seem to think that age is a messure of how much you know about current events, im living current events!




- No. Funnily enough 'NL' was voted in because of the out-going tory gov's record because it was so desparatley appalling for most and because Labour had become 'new', stopped being 'old' and made serious promises not to raise the rates of income tax.


So people voted tory because of Labours bad record, again look where that go 'em. Surely that prooves what i said if anything.

If you dont believe a third of the Earth is at war i got an idea. Look It Up!



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by shorty
No i didn't. I said that not as many people over 65 have computers.


- OK, fair enough.


I know a real terrorist threat when i see one, i was at school when the word of the towers came over. I watched it on live T.V, anyone who saw that knows exactly what a terrorist are (MAYBE) capable of.


- I am not for playing one incident off against another.

I can promise you that in terms of 'terroism' the UK's 3500+ dead thanks to the 'troubles' with Ireland far outweigh any imagined 'Al Quaeda threat'.


And yb the remark above about my age. Age has nothing to do with it. You seem to think that age is a messure of how much you know about current events, im living current events!


- Well unfortunately I do think age comes into it and does have something to do with it. Unless you do your homework and know a heck of a lot of what went on you stand the chances of missing out on the lessons learned.

There is far more to 'current events' than just 'today'. Truely understanding current events has a lot to do with how we got to 'today' and that is relevant to say the least!


So people voted tory because of Labours bad record, again look where that go 'em. Surely that prooves what i said if anything.


- Sorry shorty but I hardly think I'm alone in seeing that things are far more complicated than that.


If you dont believe a third of the Earth is at war i got an idea. Look It Up!


- Sorry but this is not my idea of a 'World War'.

I see several thousand US and UK troops in Iraq along with few thousand more from a handful of countries, some in Afghanistan, some in parts of Africa. Now what's left of Iraq or Afghanistan or the trouble-spots of Africa are hardly much of a threat to anyone let alone comparable to the axis powers of WW2 or Imperial Germany and her allies in WW1.

In fact I find using the 'World War' term an insult to the men and women across the globe who died in their many many millions in WW1 & 2 and who suffered maiming and injury in their hundred millions; including several members of my own family.

Sorry but sitting watching 'events' on the TV and being 'told' there is a threat is no match for actual bombings, shootings, kidnappings etc etc.



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Agree with little on your last but thats beside the point. We have gone quite a way off topic.






top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join