cameron the "closest thing to mrs thatcher"

[i8hibsh]

Because Baroness Thatcher is Britain's second greatest Prime Minister. She brought the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland into the modern world through her determination, foresight and force of personality.

 

good to have you on board mate

 

btw thanks for my wee song - it is now proudly on my ipod

[Boris]

Because Baroness Thatcher is Britain's second greatest Prime Minister. She brought the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland into the modern world through her determination, foresight and force of personality.

 

So you would have Churchill (war term) only at third?

 

Tut-tut.

 

We all know Atlee was the right man to rebuild the Nation after 6 years of conflict, but Churchill would be a very close second.

 

Surely?

[Therapist]

good to have you on board mate

 

btw thanks for my wee song - it is now proudly on my ipod

 

No problem. My pleasure.

 

Boris - we have had this discussion before. If you want to engage me in discussion your baiting will have to be of better quality.

[i8hibsh]

I'm not sure if you don't understand what I am trying to say, or are simply ignoring my point, but here goes again.

 

The system you refer to about choosing to go to Private School, for example, shows that not everyone does have the same opportunities. Wealth, or lack of, will obviously open up or close off certain choices you can make.

 

Yes, there are opportunities for people to better themselves (by this i assume you are meaning become wealthy?) however not everyone can do this.

 

I simply believe that the standard of certain public services, such as education and health, should be equitable to everyone in our society rich or poor. Then you would have a system where opportunities would be the same for everyone.

 

If I were a rich person why would i want to spend more money on private education if the state educational system was top notch? Why would I want private health care if the NHS could provide these things?

 

That is what I am meaning, however your argument makes me think that the result will be a two tier system where those who can will opt for private health and education as it will be seen as "better", leaving those less well off scraping through with underfunded state systems.

 

See you lefties!! honestly

 

Why punish someone because of what they have become?

 

The fact is too many people out there expect someone to wipe their bums and spoon feed them!!!!

 

The public sector is more than adequate

 

At the end of the day, it is possible to not work (neither you or your spouse) have 20 kids, pay no taxes, live of the state, send all their kids to school, dentists and doctors.

 

Get all their jags etc, have great teeth and fantastic health.

 

Have a fantastic education, get their bins emptied and their streets cleaned

 

Rely on the emergency services like us, use the same libraries as us, free this free that

 

Do these people deserve the 'same opportunities' NO - but they get it

 

so please don't talk to me about fairness pal as it simply doesn't wash with me

[Boris]

No problem. My pleasure.

 

Boris - we have had this discussion before. If you want to engage me in discussion your baiting will have to be of better quality.

 

Baiting? You can't argue against FACTS (JKB copyright on capitalised FACT) though can you?

 

You see with Atlee & Churchill there is a general concensus that they were good, right person at the right time.

 

Thatcher polarises opinion so much that one can only conclude that any notion of "greatness" has to be tarnished due to the lack of non-partisan respect.

[Boris]

See you lefties!! honestly

 

Why punish someone because of what they have become?

 

The fact is too many people out there expect someone to wipe their bums and spoon feed them!!!!

 

The public sector is more than adequate

 

At the end of the day, it is possible to not work (neither you or your spouse) have 20 kids, pay no taxes, live of the state, send all their kids to school, dentists and doctors.

 

Get all their jags etc, have great teeth and fantastic health.

 

Have a fantastic education, get their bins emptied and their streets cleaned

 

Rely on the emergency services like us, use the same libraries as us, free this free that

 

Do these people deserve the 'same opportunities' NO - but they get it

 

so please don't talk to me about fairness pal as it simply doesn't wash with me

 

I have to go now, but I will return and answer this latest offering.

 

Toodle-pip old bean!

[Therapist]

You see with Atlee & Churchill there is a general concensus that they were good, right person at the right time.

 

Atlee's legacy is already completely discredited. Consequently he can be discounted from any discussion about Britain's greatest PM.

 

Fact.

[i8hibsh]

I have to go now, but I will return and answer this latest offering.

 

Toodle-pip old bean!

 

look forward to it mate

 

enjoy your evening

[AyrJambo]

Thatcher was just what was needed then. Yes it was painful for some but what process of change isn't?

Britain in the 1970's was a disaster-zone riven by strikes, three-day weeks, power cuts, lack of choice ( anyone remember ordering a telephone from the GPO? ) and far too much reliance on out-dated working practices to keep people in jobs which actually cost all of us in the long run.

Thatcher's brand of free-marketism led to the freeing up of capital from the dead hand of the state and boosted opportunities for those who were adaptable enough or hard-working enough to make it work.

I agree that it's been very fashionable to condemn all that she stood for but we're now living through the consequences of unfettered New Labourism... health and safety gone mad, obscene political correctness, school leavers who can't string a sentence together. Time for a change.

[this_is_my_story]

I was born into a Labour gov't in 1977

 

Even by Labour's standards this was a poor term for them

 

Thatcher came into office in 79 and I grew up under her reign.

 

The word 'cataclysmic' was used on another thread!! well I think this was something required by her

 

She started of quite poorly in all honestly then she blossomed

 

As the 80's progressed Britain prospered. She enpowered the good people of the UK to own property, work for themselves.

 

Britain had never been so wealthy since the reign of Queen elizabeth the 1st

 

I can say in all honesty that as a child, I had it good. My parents had it good, most people had it good

 

The NHS had it good (mainly due to the increase in the private sector)

 

Education had it good (this was her area of expertise after all)

 

She stopped State ownership and let the man on the street have a piece of the pie

 

She let people take control not be dependent.

 

She made ot difficult for the 'social parasites', she got Britain working

 

Ronald Reagan was her lapdog!!!

 

Blair (who in fairness was a decent PM) was the lapdog to an imbicile in George Bush

 

Did she make mistakes - undoubtedly YES

 

She lowered our national debt, she created wealth for many many people

 

in 1990, in all honesty probably was her time to leave but she is EASILY Britains Greatest politician

 

Single biggest pile of moronic, ill-informed dung ever to be posted anywhere on the world wide web. Including Hibs.net.

[Denny Crane]

Do you think that makes you intelligent?

 

At least I know that Elizabeth I of England was not the Queen of Great Britain.

[Sheriff Fatman]

Education had it good (this was her area of expertise after all)

 

No it wasn't, she has a degree in chemistry and trained as a barrister. She was Secretary of State for Education for 4 years. During that time she was more than happy to support local councils shutting down grammar schools and replacing them with comprehensives. The most famous thing that happened in education during her time was the removal of free milk for seven to eleven year olds, and she had nothing to do with that. Heath's cabinet took that decision not her.

[N User]

Not really from a political stance but I just think Cameron is as the Americans say- a douche!

[Boris]

Atlee's legacy is already completely discredited. Consequently he can be discounted from any discussion about Britain's greatest PM.

 

Fact.

 

So has Thatcher's too.

 

Touche away!

[Boris]

See you lefties!! honestly

 

Why punish someone because of what they have become?

 

Where have i mentioned punishing anyone?

 

The fact is too many people out there expect someone to wipe their bums and spoon feed them!!!!

 

I don't disagree with that concept at all. In Chapter two of The Communist Manifesto, Marx & Engels state,

8. Equal liability of all to work.

This, I would say, doesn't mean spoon feeding people!

 

The public sector is more than adequate

 

IMHO, the Public Sector shouldn't be simply adequate, it should be the best. The citizens of our country deserve that.

 

At the end of the day, it is possible to not work (neither you or your spouse) have 20 kids, pay no taxes, live of the state, send all their kids to school, dentists and doctors.

 

Get all their jags etc, have great teeth and fantastic health.

 

Have a fantastic education, get their bins emptied and their streets cleaned

 

Rely on the emergency services like us, use the same libraries as us, free this free that

 

Do these people deserve the 'same opportunities' NO - but they get it

 

See my point above re equal liability of all to work, however where people are for whatever reason unable to work (a war wound for example, or a disability) then i sincerely think that as human beings we should help these people.

 

so please don't talk to me about fairness pal as it simply doesn't wash with me

 

I'd like to be treated fairly, as I am sure you would be too. Equality isn't about everyone walking about in boiler suits with the same amount of money, the same tv set etc etc It is about having the equality of opportunity.

[Sherlock]

Did someone mention Thatcher.

 

I'm with Morrissey on this one...

 

 

Please, make the dream real!!!

[i8hibsh]

Thatcher was just what was needed then. Yes it was painful for some but what process of change isn't?

Britain in the 1970's was a disaster-zone riven by strikes, three-day weeks, power cuts, lack of choice ( anyone remember ordering a telephone from the GPO? ) and far too much reliance on out-dated working practices to keep people in jobs which actually cost all of us in the long run.

Thatcher's brand of free-marketism led to the freeing up of capital from the dead hand of the state and boosted opportunities for those who were adaptable enough or hard-working enough to make it work.

I agree that it's been very fashionable to condemn all that she stood for but we're now living through the consequences of unfettered New Labourism... health and safety gone mad, obscene political correctness, school leavers who can't string a sentence together. Time for a change.

 

Indeed and lest we forget that the UK was run by Trade Unions before she started the old Iron fist

[i8hibsh]

No it wasn't, she has a degree in chemistry and trained as a barrister. She was Secretary of State for Education for 4 years. During that time she was more than happy to support local councils shutting down grammar schools and replacing them with comprehensives. The most famous thing that happened in education during her time was the removal of free milk for seven to eleven year olds, and she had nothing to do with that. Heath's cabinet took that decision not her.

 

Yes the milk - i wondered when someone would mention the old Milk snatcher nonsense

 

The milk was too expensive and in reality most of it was going to waste as it wasn't chilled, tasted raznk and kids didn't drink it

 

Pretty sensible to 'snatch' it IMO

[i8hibsh]

Where have i mentioned punishing anyone?

 

 

 

I don't disagree with that concept at all. In Chapter two of The Communist Manifesto, Marx & Engels state, This, I would say, doesn't mean spoon feeding people!

 

 

 

IMHO, the Public Sector shouldn't be simply adequate, it should be the best. The citizens of our country deserve that.

 

 

 

See my point above re equal liability of all to work, however where people are for whatever reason unable to work (a war wound for example, or a disability) then i sincerely think that as human beings we should help these people.

 

 

 

I'd like to be treated fairly, as I am sure you would be too. Equality isn't about everyone walking about in boiler suits with the same amount of money, the same tv set etc etc It is about having the equality of opportunity.

 

Equal liability of work!! what a load of gash. Think of your work and i'll think of mine.

 

there are people that simply don't pull their weight as much as the next man

 

Indeed some citizens do deserve the best from the public sector, but certainly not them all

 

Equality is wrong! simply because some people just don't deserve to be treated equally. We should award the good and punish the bad, not award everyone

 

And lastly some people are just better than others.

 

Take Hearts for example - do you think all players get paid the same? some players(very few) just give that bit more, bust a gut

 

then you have Kingston - barely can be ersed

[Sheriff Fatman]

Yes the milk - i wondered when someone would mention the old Milk snatcher nonsense

 

The milk was too expensive and in reality most of it was going to waste as it wasn't chilled, tasted raznk and kids didn't drink it

 

Pretty sensible to 'snatch' it IMO

 

I don't know, I used to enjoy the bottle of milk with a paper straw that would collapse before you got through a quarter of the bottle. Though I am interested how you say it tasted rank when you were not born until years after it stopped.

[i8hibsh]

I don't know, I used to enjoy the bottle of milk with a paper straw that would collapse before you got through a quarter of the bottle. Though I am interested how you say it tasted rank when you were not born until years after it stopped.

 

Nope it stopped in england in the 70s it was the mid 80s when it got stopped in Scotland

 

I remember drinking it as a kid

[Sheriff Fatman]

Nope it stopped in england in the 70s it was the mid 80s when it got stopped in Scotland

 

I remember drinking it as a kid

It stopped at my school in the mid 70's.

[i8hibsh]

It stopped at my school in the mid 70's.

 

I was at clermiston Primary 1982-1989 and I 100% assure you that we had it

 

I think maybe until P4

 

coppercrutch can confirm this

[I P Knightley]

well, no, because the gap widened. and that's what always happens. gaps tend to keep widening.

 

But folk didn't get poorer in absolute terms, did they?

 

IMHO, the Public Sector shouldn't be simply adequate, it should be the best. The citizens of our country deserve that.

 

Being the "best" is also a relative term but I'd question why all citizens 'deserve' it?

 

IMO, There should be adequate basic care but those who pay attention at school, work hard and contribute at the very least a bundle of tax should be allowed to choose something better - whether it be a fancy holiday, a big telly, a flash car or private education & health care - without fear of criticism or judgement.

 

Mrs T's government gave more people the opportunity to have that choice.

 

She's no saint - she's a politician after all - but she doesn't deserve the ban-wagon jumping, ill-informed vitriol of the likes of Ben Elton & Morrisey.

[Boris]

Equal liability of work!! what a load of gash. Think of your work and i'll think of mine.

 

there are people that simply don't pull their weight as much as the next man

 

Hence the need for equal liability of work.

 

Indeed some citizens do deserve the best from the public sector, but certainly not them all

See above re equal liability.

 

Equality is wrong! simply because some people just don't deserve to be treated equally. We should award the good and punish the bad, not award everyone

 

Again, see the comment about equal liability. There can be no room for skivers, malingerers etc etc

 

And lastly some people are just better than others.

 

Take Hearts for example - do you think all players get paid the same? some players(very few) just give that bit more, bust a gut

 

then you have Kingston - barely can be ersed

 

I assume you didn't fully read my comment

Equality isn't about everyone walking about in boiler suits with the same amount of money, the same tv set etc etc It is about having the equality of opportunity

[coppercrutch]

I was at clermiston Primary 1982-1989 and I 100% assure you that we had it

 

I think maybe until P4

 

coppercrutch can confirm this

 

Aye we did indeed get the mini bottle of milk. Think it was a quarter pint bottle IIRC. Not sure we got paper straws though. Just poked a few holes through the foil and sucked it oot !!

 

The reason it didn't taste the best IIRC is that it was always left out for a little too long. So was lukewarm. Not the nicest.

[Boris]

Being the "best" is also a relative term but I'd question why all citizens 'deserve' it?

 

IMO, There should be adequate basic care but those who pay attention at school, work hard and contribute at the very least a bundle of tax should be allowed to choose something better - whether it be a fancy holiday, a big telly, a flash car or private education & health care - without fear of criticism or judgement.

 

 

I have never said that people can't have that.

 

All citizens that contribute deserve it, i.e. superb public services, for the simple reason that as far as I believe this would create a society worth living in, worth contributing to and one to be proud of.

[spud]

I work with guys who have worked in the fruit industry in South Africa for 40 years. While the world was imposing sanctions on South Africa, the Thatcher government was sending ?Produce of Kenya? stickers here, so that people could buy fruit in the UK with impunity. This was only one way she avoided international and domestic regulations. Many people have told me, and they are no supporters of apartheid, that she propped up apartheid up for years.

[i8hibsh]

Aye we did indeed get the mini bottle of milk. Think it was a quarter pint bottle IIRC. Not sure we got paper straws though. Just poked a few holes through the foil and sucked it oot !!

 

The reason it didn't taste the best IIRC is that it was always left out for a little too long. So was lukewarm. Not the nicest.

 

I love my milk but that was ranko

 

I remember it would sit in crates in the hall all day

 

It used to cost the gov't ?7 million p.a in waste and i'm sorry there are better ways to spend it.

 

Thatcher worked out that they were spending more on milk than on books!

[Sheriff Fatman]

I love my milk but that was ranko

 

I remember it would sit in crates in the hall all day

 

It used to cost the gov't ?7 million p.a in waste and i'm sorry there are better ways to spend it.

 

Thatcher worked out that they were spending more on milk than on books!

 

Thatcher didn't work out anything of the sort, the idea to withdrawn the milk from schools was originally brought up by the Labour pary, who then removed free milk from secondary schools. When Heath's government came to power the entire cabinet decided to extend that to primary kids. Thatcher's role in any of it was negligable.

[this_is_my_story]

I have never said that people can't have that.

 

All citizens that contribute deserve it, i.e. superb public services, for the simple reason that as far as I believe this would create a society worth living in, worth contributing to and one to be proud of.

 

Boris, with respect to your right to continue a 'debate' on a public internet forum, you are wasting your time and intellect with certain buffoons on this thread.

 

Although the word 'fact' is overused on this forum (albeit in a sometimes humourous context), 'fact' is indeed mainly what much of your argument has adhered to, coupled with rational thought - something which must exist mutually on either side of any debate for the debate to be at all worthwhile. That's not the case here.

 

All that's coming from the Tory side is the same old sod the facts, wave the flag garbage, along with the usual measures of jaw-dropping ignorance, and the proper debating capacity of a dribbling infant.

 

However let me say that I do admire your efforts so far, and that I will continue to enjoy watching you dissect and correct the 'arguments' coming from the hot air brigade - I personally wouldn't have the time, nor the patience, to educate them.

 

Cheers!

[AyrJambo]

If I were a rich person why would i want to spend more money on private education if the state educational system was top notch?

 

Unfortunately it would never be top-notch since it would be forced to dumb down to the lowest common denominator in order to cater for all. That's essentially what happened when the comprehensive system was introduced.

Additionally what's wrong with personal choice if you want something and can afford it?

 

I have never said that people can't have that.

 

All citizens that contribute deserve it, i.e. superb public services, for the simple reason that as far as I believe this would create a society worth living in, worth contributing to and one to be proud of.

 

What about those that contribute nothing? It's far too easy for people to live their whole lives with no visible means of support apart from state hand-outs. Indeed we now have sectors of society where multiple generations see this as normal. It's laudible to want to provide good quality public services but the basic problem is that those who contribute least require the most out of services such as social work ( one of the biggest public spends ) and those who contribute most wouldn't notice if they weren't there.

 

The world doesn't owe anyone a living and social policy and public spending should reflect that FACT(copyright Boris )

[Quagmire]

Unfortunately it would never be top-notch since it would be forced to dumb down to the lowest common denominator in order to cater for all. That's essentially what happened when the comprehensive system was introduced.

Additionally what's wrong with personal choice if you want something and can afford it?

 

if you had read/taken in what has already been posted, you'd have seen this has been answered.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Thatcher was just what was needed then. Yes it was painful for some but what process of change isn't?

Britain in the 1970's was a disaster-zone riven by strikes, three-day weeks, power cuts, lack of choice ( anyone remember ordering a telephone from the GPO? ) and far too much reliance on out-dated working practices to keep people in jobs which actually cost all of us in the long run.

Thatcher's brand of free-marketism led to the freeing up of capital from the dead hand of the state and boosted opportunities for those who were adaptable enough or hard-working enough to make it work.

I agree that it's been very fashionable to condemn all that she stood for but we're now living through the consequences of unfettered New Labourism... health and safety gone mad, obscene political correctness, school leavers who can't string a sentence together. Time for a change.

 

There are some lovely realities and myths of the Thatcher "reign".

 

Monetarism is the first one - monetarism was first adopted in Britain in 1976 after the IMF took charge of the economy when Denis Healey went cap in hand to them as the country was bankrupt. It split the Labour party to the extent they started the "Lib-Lab pact" to help them pass legislation. When the Conservatives came to power in 1979 they formalised more stringent monetary targets as inflation was 25%+. The subsequent closure in industry was a harsh fact of life as British heavy industry had been uncompetitive for years and Japan, Korea etc. not only produced better products but cheaper products as well.

 

The monetary targets turned out to be rubbish and led to far stronger ? against the $ than forecast. The main reason though was because of North Sea Oil coming on stream. Then financial deregulation widened M4 (broad money supply) but the impact wasn't understood. At that point, monetarism was quietly dropped. Nigel Lawson then started unofficially shadowing the D-mark as Conservative monetary policy, which eventually led to the ERM disaster.

 

Government spending - There's an image of the Tories making brutal "cuts" to public spending in the 1980's. The truth is they continually increased spending by more than real terms. However, in health this wasn't enough because of the technological and drug advances that were required. This is still a problem in the NHS. The reality is though that the NHS is a bloated 'behemoth' which is completely inefficient. France and Germany have far better health systems but don't have an NHS equivalent. Suggest social insurance in the UK though and you are immediately accused of "privatising" the NHS.

 

As for education there were cuts there because the school rolls had fallen in number. The real issue in education came with the farce of the poll tax, the Tories greatest mistake (after the Anglo Irish agreement!).

 

Defence spending was also a lot higher in the 1980s due to the perceived Soviet threat.

 

The real problem was one of image rather than substance. Spitting Image was a far more effective opposition than Kinnock ever was.

[Eggo]

The thing is with thatcher is that people say they hate her as it's the 'in thing' to say

 

Do you genuinely have a reason for disliking her or do you just jump on the bandwagon?

 

most folk don't actually have a feckin clue

 

 

The in thing to say...no sonny!

That bitch tried to close Scotland down...fact!

I will hate her till I die.

30000 jobs went in the Fife area alone.

 

"The in thing to say"....I dont think:mad:

[I P Knightley]

I have never said that people can't have that.

 

All citizens that contribute deserve it, i.e. superb public services, for the simple reason that as far as I believe this would create a society worth living in, worth contributing to and one to be proud of.

 

I did not intend to level such an accusation at you. Apologies that that's how it came across.

 

Another way for me to put it is: if everyone has free access to excellent public services, where is the incentive to contribute? Not for those who through rare entrepreneurial skills will make millions but for those who, through effort & dedication, could rise from, say, middle- to senior management; those who could go from employee in a big company to self-employed.

 

I can see your argument that (I think) says that high earners will pay tax which should fund top public services and that those high earners will benefit from the same public services as if they'd gone private.

 

In fact, I agree with it as an ideal. I'd far rather that than have to worry about the quality of my kids' education and healthcare. However, the public sector is too inefficient for that to happen. It's not Brown's fault; it's not Blair's, Major's or Thatcher's. It's depressingly institutional and even Thatcher didn't have the wherewithal to smash it.

 

So, in the absence of an ideal system, we've got what we've got. There are openings to people of ability and application to make good careers for themselves regardless of background. Many more openings than existed in the '70s and, I believe, would have come about were it not for the Thatcher government.

 

The wealthy contribute tax revenue that funds the opportunities for the not-so-wealthy. If wealthy parents all sent their kids to state school, what would happen to the funding? There would have to be a higher tax take impacting upon all tax payers (though you lefties would see it levied only on the high earners ) so it seems reasonable to me that they can use choice, keeping kids out of the public system.

[I P Knightley]

Boris, with respect to your right to continue a 'debate' on a public internet forum, you are wasting your time and intellect with certain buffoons on this thread.

 

Although the word 'fact' is overused on this forum (albeit in a sometimes humourous context), 'fact' is indeed mainly what much of your argument has adhered to, coupled with rational thought - something which must exist mutually on either side of any debate for the debate to be at all worthwhile. That's not the case here.

 

All that's coming from the Tory side is the same old sod the facts, wave the flag garbage, along with the usual measures of jaw-dropping ignorance, and the proper debating capacity of a dribbling infant.

 

However let me say that I do admire your efforts so far, and that I will continue to enjoy watching you dissect and correct the 'arguments' coming from the hot air brigade - I personally wouldn't have the time, nor the patience, to educate them.

 

Cheers!

 

Am I alone in appreciating the irony?

 

 

 

I also enjoy Boris' debates and enjoy, where time allows, partaking and thereby receiving an education from a man who I accept has studied such matters far more extensively than I have.

 

However, admirable though his knowledge is, and his commitment to his beliefs and the lucidity of his argument, I happen not to agree with them all; the dribbling, hot air spouting, infant buffoon that I am.

[Boris]

Another way for me to put it is: if everyone has free access to excellent public services, where is the incentive to contribute?

 

The incentive is knowing that you are actually contributing to society.

 

I suppose I am talking about a completely different mindset compared to the one we have now i.e. collectivism against materialism, however the current state of mind is no surprise as we live, and have lived, in a capitalist environment for the best part of 300years, so humans have had to adapt and have been raised in this materialist, now consumerist, society.

 

Change the society and the environment to change the mentality of the population to one that is concerned about society as a whole, rather than the even more extreme "I'm alright Jack" attitude that is prevailing in Western society today. An attitude aided and abetted in no small way by Thatcherism.

[this_is_my_story]

Am I alone in appreciating the irony?

 

 

 

I also enjoy Boris' debates and enjoy, where time allows, partaking and thereby receiving an education from a man who I accept has studied such matters far more extensively than I have.

 

However, admirable though his knowledge is, and his commitment to his beliefs and the lucidity of his argument, I happen not to agree with them all; the dribbling, hot air spouting, infant buffoon that I am.

 

Actually, I wouldn't necessarily include you in what I referred to as the 'hot air brigade', so there's no need for you to take my post to heart quite so much! I did notice that you seem capable of contributing to the thread - you can concisely convey a point which has at least been thought out, rather than just sit and bang out blatant non-truths.

 

With regard to your question which opens your post - yes, you will be, as there isn't any.

[I P Knightley]

Actually, I wouldn't necessarily include you in what I referred to as the 'hot air brigade', so there's no need for you to take my post to heart quite so much! I did notice that you seem capable of contributing to the thread - you can concisely convey a point which has at least been thought out, rather than just sit and bang out blatant non-truths.

 

With regard to your question which opens your post - yes, you will be, as there isn't any.

 

"Concisely"?

 

Me?

 

Shucks - that's made my weekend!

 

 

 

Boris, I guess that you and I may have similar ideals (strange though it may seem) however, I'm aged, wizened and cynical enough to accept that a significant change to the way things are is not likely to happen and I think about making the best of what we've got.

 

Whilst the 'I'm Alright, Jack' attitude was not dampened down by Mrs T, nor has it been by previous or successive governments of any hue.

 

Gaaahhh! Now I'm not so cheery as I was when being accused of being concise. Best have a beer.

[Therapist]

That bitch tried to close Scotland down...fact!

 

:rolleyes:

[Boris]

 

Boris, I guess that you and I may have similar ideals (strange though it may seem) however, I'm aged, wizened and cynical enough to accept that a significant change to the way things are is not likely to happen and I think about making the best of what we've got.

 

The realpolitik of the situation demands as much, however one can hope for a brighter future.

 

Whilst the 'I'm Alright, Jack' attitude was not dampened down by Mrs T, nor has it been by previous or successive governments of any hue.

 

Yeah capitalism!

 

Gaaahhh! Now I'm not so cheery as I was when being accused of being concise. Best have a beer.

 

If you down it in a oner, it will be a concise beer. Double the happiness!

 

Have one for me while you are at it...

[Spitonastranger]

The thing is with thatcher is that people say they hate her as it's the 'in thing' to say

 

Do you genuinely have a reason for disliking her or do you just jump on the bandwagon?

 

most folk don't actually have a feckin clue

 

there are two many reasons to hate thatcher, its not trendy to say it:hobofish:

[this_is_my_story]

"Concisely"?

 

Me?

 

Shucks - that's made my weekend!

 

 

 

Boris, I guess that you and I may have similar ideals (strange though it may seem) however, I'm aged, wizened and cynical enough to accept that a significant change to the way things are is not likely to happen and I think about making the best of what we've got.

 

Whilst the 'I'm Alright, Jack' attitude was not dampened down by Mrs T, nor has it been by previous or successive governments of any hue.

 

Gaaahhh! Now I'm not so cheery as I was when being accused of being concise. Best have a beer.

 

Sad, but very true. I'd have to opine though, that the existence of the attitude to which you refer owes a lot to Thatcher, rather than it being a case of that attitude having not been 'dampened down' by her.

 

Oh... and as far me having 'made your weekend' goes... am I detecting the slightest peppering of sacrasm in that little nugget?

[Eggo]

:rolleyes:

 

 

 

Explain please.

[Therapist]

Explain please.

 

No offence, but your claim is typical wannabe/trendy-leftie reactionary sound bite nonsense.

 

She didn't try to "close Scotland down". She gave Scotland a much needed makeover by getting rid of outdated uncompetitive union-ridden industries and bringing in a modern, service oriented economy.

[i8hibsh]

:rolleyes:

 

No point even arguing

 

The fact is she made cuts in areas that were non profitable and infact almost counterproductive to the economy.

 

Margaret Thatcher VERY much liked Scotland. She was all for the Union and seen Scotland as a country of huge value, just like England,Wales and N.Ireland

 

She didn't exactly make cuts in the financial sector (where there was a boom) she made cuts in shipping ,mining as these were exhausted industries that had dried up

 

That is the trouble with 'lefties' Tharapist they have no concept of economics. They would rather have people down the mines and building ships even although noone was buying then product.

 

The poll tax however was ridiculous and was indeed a huge mistake of hers. She wasn't perfect

[Therapist]

Excellent analysis i8.

[i8hibsh]

Boris not knowing you as a person, I can honestly say that I find you a really good poster who contributes to the board.

 

I equally enjoy locking horns with you and think you seem a smart guy

 

however it is a classic case of 2 Poles colliding. Your whole idea of life to me is archaic. You need to modernise your beliefs and opinions.

 

If your 'vision' was realised we would all be living in thatched huts, speaking Gaelic and working for the benefit of not our families but the 'equal man' next door.

 

I however want to live in a world that has success, wealth, opportuinity, innovation,challenge, competition, choice, progression and advancement

[Eggo]

No offence, but your claim is typical wannabe/trendy-leftie reactionary sound bite nonsense.

 

She didn't try to "close Scotland down". She gave Scotland a much needed makeover by getting rid of outdated uncompetitive union-ridden industries and bringing in a modern, service oriented economy.

 

 

At the age of 50 I certainly dont need any education on that bitch.

You should hang your head in shame if you actually believe she helped Scotland.You must be truly ill informed about the events surrounding her dictatorship....young and ill informed.

If she was such a good thing for us,why did the tories not win a seat in Scotland when we got rid of her...ill tell you why,even tories voted her out!

Hope she dies a sorry soul!