Remember the Bad Old Days of Tory rule

[Infinite Chaos]

It's a fair point, reform was necessary but the methods used were draconian and more akin to Pinochet's Chile than to a modern 'democracy'. Reform at the end of a police truncheon damaged the very fabric of society.

True that Maggie brought in laws that allowed her to take on the unions in such a big way. You also have to confess that Scargill was an equally willing partner in the troubles that followed. He used union workers as chess pawns in his battles with Thatcher's police - but she always had law on her side.

-- It turned the country around all right. It created the service/financial services-based economy whose pigeons have now come home to roost.

The financial nightmare has hit countries run by govts of all persuasions.

As for the economy - this was a surprise to me. We lost redundant manufacturing industry in British Leyland (who misses Austin or Morris cars?) but it would seem that we may still have more manufacturing than France.

We did liberate the financial sector - granted we sold the family jewels like the utilities, BT and many other key areas however other areas became more efficient - even parts that used to be within British Leyland.

-- Thing is, I think that the Tory Party is politically and structurally unsuited for coalition government. Compromise is anathema to their rank and file and such compromises that would be required for them to create a workable coalition would turn their party loyalists into their government's worst opponents. William Hague would become the figurehead of a party within a party and subvert all policy not concordant with 'traditional Tory values'. I suspect New Labour would have no such qualms.

I couldn't predict how the election will resolve itself and I wouldn't want to guess who will work with who but the Tories will seek coalition partners in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. I'm really surprised that the Lib Dem vote looks to have gone backward today.

It's a fair point, reform was necessary but the methods used were draconian and more akin to Pinochet's Chile than to a modern 'democracy'. Reform at the end of a police truncheon damaged the very fabric of society.

True that Maggie brought in laws that allowed her to take on the unions in such a big way. You also have to confess that Scargill was an equally willing partner in the troubles that followed. He used union workers as chess pawns in his battles with Thatcher's police - but she always had law on her side.

-- This was a product of a policy begun by Thatcher and continued by Major, Blair and Brown of playing the political game of not raising MPs' salaries but turning a blind eye to the expenses system and its abuses. A UK MP has a salary of £64,000, a US Congressman £115,000, Italian deputies' salaries are £110,000. The political expedient of covering up the true earnings of MPs is the real cause of the scandal.

ALL parties were affected by the scandal. I fail to see how it can be blamed on Thatcher or anyone since.

It's a fair point, reform was necessary but the methods used were draconian and more akin to Pinochet's Chile than to a modern 'democracy'. Reform at the end of a police truncheon damaged the very fabric of society.

True that Maggie brought in laws that allowed her to take on the unions in such a big way. You also have to confess that Scargill was an equally willing partner in the troubles that followed. He used union workers as chess pawns in his battles with Thatcher's police - but she always had law on her side.

-- It wasn't an analyst, it was Governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King who said it. I think he may be right.

Thanks for the clarification - I do recall the analyst mention Mervyn King saying this to an American Banker - but couldn't find the link. Glad you remember the comment too.

 

[Andalublue]

Yes, I have been remembering that the entire build up to this election. Labour have won their first safe seat a Sunderland one but with a dramatically reduced majority - down from around 17,000 to around 11,000

That's not true. Sunderland South Labour majority last time was 11,000. It was 17,000 in Houghton. The two are now one new constituency. You can't make a direct comparison.

Other news - in several places large numbers of people have been sent home unable to cast their vote. This has never happened before. It is thought lots of people decided to vote around 9 and the doors were shut before they could get in.

This is pretty worrying. Being denied the right to vote despite turning up at a polling station in good time (i.e. before 10pm) is almost certainly contrary to the Representation of the People Act. There will be legal ramifications.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

People being denied their rights or having them subverted? What more do you expect under Zanu?!

 

[alexa]

That's not true. Sunderland South Labour majority last time was 11,000. It was 17,000 in Houghton. The two are now one new constituency. You can't make a direct comparison.

well Andalublue I was just going from what I saw on tv. Have been up since the crack of dawn having my kitchen fitted, so maybe this was the Houghton one and I got it wrong. I was not making comparisons though if I made a mistake.

This is pretty worrying. Being denied the right to vote despite turning up at a polling station in good time (i.e. before 10pm) is almost certainly contrary to the Representation of the People Act. There will be legal ramifications.

Is it 10 they shut, I thought it was 9. I think they are apparently allowed to shut the doors when they are supposed to. However I have seen masses of people lined up the streets in Leeds unable to vote.

There will be furore though.

Washington has an 11.6 swing to the conservatives.

 

[Andalublue]

The financial nightmare has hit countries run by govts of all persuasions.

But the specific and more severe impact that the crisis appears to be having on Britain is clearly a result of the over-dependance of the British economy on the performance of the financial sector.

As for the economy - this was a surprise to me. We lost redundant manufacturing industry in British Leyland (who misses Austin or Morris cars?) but it would seem that we may still have more manufacturing than France.

Historically the British economy has always been more of a manufacturing-based economy than France.

We did liberate the financial sector - granted we sold the family jewels like the utilities, BT and many other key areas however other areas became more efficient - even parts that used to be within British Leyland.

You say "liberate" I would say "put the lunatics in charge of the asylum", with the current disastrous consequences. The Tories did indeed sell off the family silver (as brown did with the family gold reserves) but I would be interested in what areas you believe efficiencies were achieved that led to an improvement in the quality of the services provided by those industries.

I couldn't predict how the election will resolve itself and I wouldn't want to guess who will work with who but the Tories will seek coalition partners in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. I'm really surprised that the Lib Dem vote looks to have gone backward today.

It's much too soon to suggest that the LibDems have gone backwards. Remember 1992!

 

[Andalublue]

People being denied their rights or having them subverted? What more do you expect under Zanu?!

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the organisation of the poll has nothing to do with the government. It's operated by the Electoral Commission, not controlled by Labour BTW.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

But the specific and more severe impact that the crisis appears to be having on Britain is clearly a result of the over-dependance of the British economy on the performance of the financial sector.

-- snip --

Historically the British economy has always been more of a manufacturing-based economy than France.

On one hand the British economy is over dependent on the financial sector but we still have a more manufacturing based economy than France. Personally, I do feel low value jobs have gone, defunct industries have died out and those left have by and large had to be more efficient. That's not to say all British industry left is efficient and leaner and more competitive.

-- You say "liberate" I would say "put the lunatics in charge of the asylum", with the current disastrous consequences. The Tories did indeed sell off the family silver (as brown did with the family gold reserves) but I would be interested in what areas you believe efficiencies were achieved that led to an improvement in the quality of the services provided by those industries.

Land Rover, most of the British Pharmaceuticals industries, supermarkets (I remember rats in Tesco in the 80's) IT and telephone industries that benefited from the removal of BT's monopoly etc.

-- It's much too soon to suggest that the LibDems have gone backwards. Remember 1992!

Yeah, I voted for Kinnock that year. The morning will tell however.

 

[Andalublue]

On one hand the British economy is over dependent on the financial sector but we still have a more manufacturing based economy than France. Personally, I do feel low value jobs have gone, defunct industries have died out and those left have by and large had to be more efficient. That's not to say all British industry left is efficient and leaner and more competitive.

No contradiction here. Britain is NOW over-dependent on the City, but historically it was an economy based on manufacturing and trade in manufactured goods. The vestiges of that legacy remain, but the swing away from manufacturing towards the service sector has damaged the country's ability to weather the current global economic crisis.

I don't agree that replacing low-skill manufacturing jobs with low-skill retail and call centre jobs is necessarily a positive development.

Land Rover, most of the British Pharmaceuticals industries, supermarkets (I remember rats in Tesco in the 80's) IT and telephone industries that benefited from the removal of BT's monopoly etc.

Sorry, I thought you were referring to the privatised incarnations of formerly publicly-owned bodies. I defy anyone to claim that rail travel, steel production or airlines are better run privately than they were in public ownership.

Yeah, I voted for Kinnock that year. The morning will tell however.

Yup. I'm enjoying it on Radio 4. You really should catch the rambling and slurring Margaret Beckett! She'll be challenging Sayeeda Warsi to a fight by 2 o'clock.

 

[Blueangel]

This is pretty worrying. Being denied the right to vote despite turning up at a polling station in good time (i.e. before 10pm) is almost certainly contrary to the Representation of the People Act. There will be legal ramifications.

Such as the Premier being chosen by the lawyers ala Bush 2000?

 

[Manc Skipper]

Such as the Premier being chosen by the lawyers ala Bush 2000?

It has happened in tens of seats. If the results are in any way close in any of them , there will be legal challenges, perhaps re- runs, and those in turn may change the result of the election, if THAT is as close as predicted.....

 

[Blueangel]

Like everyone is saying, the turnout is unprecedented.
I know of 7 so far. Are you thinking election re-run within 6mths?

 

[Australianlibertarian]

You have a very selective memory. Can we assume you were in Britain during the 70s and 80s? I certainly was and remember the disputes and the state repression of the Thatcher years. Yes, I will concede that some union reforms were necessary, but the Miners' Strike was called entirely legally and crushed by using paramilitarized policing and the starving of the miners' families to force them back to work.

In fairly short order the claims of the miners' union, that the Government did everything to deride, proved true. They were indeed intent on destroying the mining industry and the manufacturing base that it supported. That came to pass and Britain's manufacturing base was decimated leading to the over-mighty influence of the financial sector, which brings us to today's economic meltdown. How much stronger economically would modern Britain be had the miners won?



Anyone who has lived in the UK during the 90s and 00s and saw the parlous state of the Tory NHS and its recovery under Labour has every reason to doubt the commitment of the Tories to this crowning achievement of post-war socialism. Even the far right, who hate the very concept on which it was based (universal health care free at the point of delivery) , concede that it is a major factor in attracting migrants (both legal and illegal) to the country. It's something worth having, hence many want it. That is not something one could have said of it 15 years ago.



No, it's a much more basic concept that wealth should be earned, not inherited. The same goes for privilege and political power, hence the driving need to create a wholly elected House of Lords. Would Australia or the US accept a second chamber based on nepotism or accident of birth? Taxing inheritance and eliminating hereditary privilege are two aspects of the same philosophical position.



Agreed. It used to be, but Blair and Brown, despite their great achievements with the NHS and partial success in Education, have done nothing to decrease social inequality, quite the opposite in fact. And they have done nothing to reverse the decline in manufacturing that Thatcher and Major began as a conscious policy. For that reason I hope that tomorrow sees no single party holding an absolute majority and that the LibDems and Labour together can produce economic stability and a return to supporting and developing a new economic model based on manufacturing, innovation and high-skill, sustainable production equally aimed at export and domestic consumption.



We don't need to look at Japan. Many of us lived through a period of drastic public spending cuts throughout the 80s to be more than aware of what catastrophic consequences such cuts can have, not just in macro-economic terms, but in human terms, in misery, poverty and social discontent. Cuts have to be made, no argument, but what is important is where those cuts are made, for the benefit of whom, at the expense of whom and, therefore and fundamentally, by whom they are made.

Err no...

Manufacturing in Britain was in terminal decline during the early 70's under Labour. This had nothing to do with the coal industry, but rather, British Industry could not compete on either quality, price or efficiency compared to their German, Japanese of Korean rivals.

Wealth should be earned. But I don't see why families that are economic self-sufficient, should be denied the fruits of their parents, just because you want to see them work. Put this way, there is zero efficiency or any benefit in destroying wealth, redistributing and hoping that these people won't then scrounge off the state.

Secondly, if the state doesn't intervene as opposed to propping up the wealth of families via corporate bailouts, then their wealth would be readily and more efficiently re-distributed by the free market. You seem to assume that wealthy people do not make mistakes with their money, and therefore without the inheritance tax, the wealthy would accumulate wealth at an exponential rate. This is not so.

You felt the cuts of the 80's but you didn't realise that the state could only afford to give the cradle to the crave welfare support, by inflating the money supply in the first place. If the monetary supply is sound, the great promises of progressives and fabians are physically not possible.

Lastly, I really don't give a **** if everyman and his dog engaged in economic bailouts of banks. What has occurred is fundamental inflation, loss of purchasing power and dilution of you savings (if you were one of the few people actually saving). The governments of the world insulated the mistakes of private individuals and organisations, by opening the printing presses. Then everyone takes it up the backside. Real leadership from Gordon Brown or any other politician would have been to tell the banks and automakers to get ****ed. Yes there would be massive unemployment, but capital would no longer be wasted on inefficient or worthless hulks, investment would flow into other industries, which in turn would create demand for labour.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

..The organisation of the poll has nothing to do with the government. It's operated by the Electoral Commission, not controlled by Labour BTW.

But who was in charge, setting down the rules for the Electoral Commission to follow? Cardboard ballot boxes or paper seals, pencils instead of pens to mark your cross now, unguarded ballot boxes left unattended overnight in local elections, 'lost' votes in a myriad of elections, a postal vote system open to fraud, etc.

Not a pretty picture and all happening under Labour.

(All 51 seats to Labour in Barking.....?)




http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe/71937-new-labour-rig-election-again.html


Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News ...
VOTERS are heading for the polls today in European and council elections which .... what about the cardboard ballot boxes storing votes being left unsealed? ...
www.express.co.uk › NEWS / SHOWBIZ › UK NEWS - Cached


http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...to-postal-vote-fraud-claims-across-capital.do

 

[Blueangel]

One constituency!

The bnp managed to lose every single local council seat they had the length and breadth of the country and I, for one, am absolutely thrilled about that!

 

[gunner]

Err no...

Manufacturing in Britain was in terminal decline during the early 70's under Labour.

I don't need to venture much past the first line to see selective memory paralysis....

Have you blanked out 1970-74 where Heath established the rot?

Paul

 

[mikhail]

I don't need to venture much past the first line to see selective memory paralysis....

Have you blanked out 1970-74 where Heath established the rot?

Paul

I dont see how he established anything of the sort.Though besides anything he was obvously gay.

 

[Australianlibertarian]

I don't need to venture much past the first line to see selective memory paralysis....

Have you blanked out 1970-74 where Heath established the rot?

Paul

You tell me about British Leyland, production of ships on the Clyde or Tyne, or steel out puts from the mid 60's to the 80's and you'll see what I am talking about. What I am talking about is history, not some sort of selective memory.

 

[Andalublue]

I dont see how he established anything of the sort.Though besides anything he was obvously gay.

Eh? He was obviously gay, so of course he made a mess of it? What're trying to say with that obtuse message?

 

[Djoop]

Eh? He was obviously gay, so of course he made a mess of it? What're trying to say with that obtuse message?

He meant to say drunk, corrupt, xenophobe :lol:

 

[mikeey]

Mrs Thatcher gave the people of the uk a house for a third of the price,

what more can u ask from a great PM.No PM can ever match that what she did for the people.

God bless her.

my kind regards

to mrs Thatcher.

mikeey.

PS.Labour could never do that.

 

[Blueangel]

Mrs Thatcher gave the people of the uk a house for a third of the price,

what more can u ask from a great PM.No PM can ever match that what she did for the people.

So...she seriously depleted the national stock of council owned housing which caused more low income to be cast into over crowded properties because she, and all the successive Tory and Labour governments didn't replenish the stock of affordable housing.

Great way to make people homeless. Ta for that!
Can't wait for her to pop her clogs.

 

[mikhail]

So...she seriously depleted the national stock of council owned housing which caused more low income to be cast into over crowded properties because she, and all the successive Tory and Labour governments didn't replenish the stock of affordable housing.

Great way to make people homeless. Ta for that!
Can't wait for her to pop her clogs.

The mistake was not building more houses.

 

[mikeey]

Come on Blue u would have taking a house for nearly nout,would u not.I no a lot of people did take the offer,sold up and went and bought a house in Spain
for a few pestas.

all the best Blue.

mikeey

 

[Blueangel]

Come on Blue u would have taking a house for nearly nout,would u not.I no a lot of people did take the offer,sold up and went and bought a house in Spain
for a few pestas.

all the best Blue.

mikeey

How Mikeey?
I wasn't raised in council. None of my family lived in council so I was excluded. I did have a council flat once but I would never have bought it.
Thing is you had to have lived in council housing for a good few years before you could apply and that was never going to be an option for me.

I saved up and chose where I wanted to live