Labour 1997 - 2010, was the worst government ever

(102 Posts)
Wellwobbly Thu 10-Oct-13 20:00:01

Wellwobbly Thu 10-Oct-13 20:03:04


MrJudgeyPants Fri 11-Oct-13 16:23:13

I don't think that history has finished judging New Labour yet. So many of their fuck ups will have such long term ramifications for this country that unborn generations will be cursing Blair and Brown for a long time yet.

Wannabestepfordwife Fri 11-Oct-13 16:30:46

I wouldn't say they were the worst government ever I think the third reichs got that covered.

However I think they were a horrendous government and I don't think I could ever vote labour

SirChenjin Fri 11-Oct-13 16:35:53

I voted for them. I remember being absolutely convinced that they were going to change society for the better. I was utterly, utterly wrong - they destroyed this country. angry

niceguy2 Sat 12-Oct-13 00:54:01

Nah, they weren't the worst by a long shot. What about James Callghan's government who presided over the winter of discontent?

His Tonyness wasn't all bad. Many of his policies were just misguided. New Labour tended to just throw money at the problem and think that would fix it. Of course it doesn't.

The biggest long term problems we face such as sovereign debt and the pension timebomb have been there for a lot longer than before New Labour came to power. Each government just kicks the hard decisions into the long grass and hope someone else will end up having to deal with it.

They were pretty shite though to have inherited a balanced budget and left with a humongous deficit.

SirChenjin Sat 12-Oct-13 13:05:34

Yep, JC's Government was up there (down there?) with the very worst. From a longevity point of view though, TB still has it imo.

Wellwobbly Sat 12-Oct-13 13:22:44

I agree with you there Niceguy - His Tonyness wasn't all bad. Many of his policies were just misguided. - Tony Blair got that public services needed reforming. He just got totally stitched up by his lunatic Chancellor.

This was a time where TB really should have listened to his wife. He should have sacked that unprintable chap.

But here is the problem NG: why on the left, are catastrophic policies merely 'misguided', like, you know, all the over 100 millions killed by those misguided policies of Stalin and Mao, whereas on the right it is caused by downright evil?

ohmymimi Mon 14-Oct-13 22:27:07

Slightly off point, but there are Americans who believe Hitler was a Leftie because he was a National Socialist.

MrJudgeyPants Tue 15-Oct-13 00:38:38

Ohmymimi there are plenty of Brits who believe that too. Many are of the opinion that National Socialism and International Socialism are just different ends of the same turd.

Wellwobbly Tue 15-Oct-13 07:03:48

I started rebutting you both, and then stopped and thought a bit - actually, these two are right.

National Socialism is a fascist movement. The apartheid government was National socialism.

If any of you are interested in why Africa goes wrong, can I direct you to a book by Moeletsi Mbeki (brother of President Mbeki, an economist) called 'Architects of Poverty'.

He describes the history of South Africa as a struggle between two nationalist movements: Afrikaner nationalism, and African nationalism. His conclusion? African nationalism is WORSE economically for South Africa than apartheid was! This fascinating book explains why.

The ANC are rather cross with him as a result.

The other essay I found absolutely fascinating is by Alice Miller: Adolf Hitler - From Hidden to Manifest Horror.

I urge anyone who wants to understand WHY? to read this. Adolf Hitler had the most horrific childhood. Horrific. And he was a clever, sensitive little boy. Who used those talents to take an entire continent to destruction to project and ward off his inner trauma.

PS Saddam Hussein, Josef Stalin and Osama bin Laden - similar childhoods. The cost of child abuse is huge.

ohmymimi Tue 15-Oct-13 09:27:54

Thank you for the information about the Mbeki and Miller books, I'm off to track them down.

ttosca Tue 15-Oct-13 13:11:26

> I urge anyone who wants to understand WHY? to read this. Adolf Hitler had the most horrific childhood. Horrific. And he was a clever, sensitive little boy. Who used those talents to take an entire continent to destruction to project and ward off his inner trauma.

Really? I didn't know this. What's your source? Can you recommend a book?

chibi Tue 15-Oct-13 13:18:18

it is incredible to lay the blame for nazism and all its horrors on one man's unhappy childhood

i was not there, but it seemed to me that there were quite a few enthusiastic fascists about in the 30s and 40s- please do not exonerate or whitewash their role because Hitler's dad was mean or whatever

ttosca Tue 15-Oct-13 17:27:35


Please don't confusing understanding with justifying. One can understand what contributed to X without justifying X. Understanding something does not automatically exonerate someone from all personal responsibility, either.

OldLadyKnowsNothing Tue 15-Oct-13 17:32:10


Do you honestly take the rantings of this man seriously? Seriously?

Man alive.

BechuanaGirl Fri 27-Dec-13 16:49:45

Worst governments (imho):

Roman Republic
Stalin's USSR
Mao's PRC
Third Reich
Kimmy State of Korea
Clement Atlee and Labour
Labour '97 to 2010
Saudi Arabia
Iran 1978-2013 (pre Rouhani)
Sudan 1989-present

Blair barely made seventh, but yeah, it was a pretty awful decade and a bit.

ohtanmybum Fri 27-Dec-13 20:02:15

Put the sherry down, Bechuana, you've put Lab 97-2010 after Stalin and Mao, who could possibly take you list seriously?

BechuanaGirl Fri 27-Dec-13 21:51:09

ohtanmybum Haha, define worst maybe? Mao and Stalin destroyed their countries but set them on an unstoppable course for redevelopment under Deng and Khrushchev respectively, but Lab 97-2010 destroyed their countries and forced into power some well-meaning, intelligent but universally hated (for some reason) Eton boys and some useless children in's all opinion!

Personally I want the empire back, but new and improved (and I'm allowed to say this because I'm from a (ex)colony!)

MrsWembley Fri 27-Dec-13 22:15:13

Can I come in and hide here? I didn't think threads like this were allowed on MN...

<wanders around looking for a comfy corner to sit in and listen to people who sound vaguely sensible>

NigellasDealer Fri 27-Dec-13 22:19:02

Adolf Hitler had the most horrific childhood. Horrific. And he was a clever, sensitive little boy. Who used those talents to take an entire continent to destruction to project and ward off his inner trauma
oh please.....does anyone really believe that an ugly little failed art student and jailbird suddenly became chancellor of germany through his own strengths and talents? that he didn't have extremely powerful backers?

ProfondoRosso Fri 27-Dec-13 22:24:51

Purely coming from personal perspective here, but a good few people in former mining communities in Scotland who had the poll tax rolled out when they were at their most desperate might beg to differ.

caroldecker Fri 27-Dec-13 22:28:48

profondo the miners plight was purely the fault of the miners, the strike was illegal and the community charge was a fair way of spreading the cost of local services, although the implementation may have left things to be desired

Oblomov Fri 27-Dec-13 22:36:24

Blimey. This had gone a bit off track. Yes I believe Blair did alot of damage. Yes I think he has a lot to answer for. We were taken in by him. By god, what a mistake!

CustardoPaidforIDSsYFronts Fri 27-Dec-13 22:40:15

Blair was horrible, his was a Tory government under a different name, but to call it the worst ( in britain) is a bit rich ( pun intended)

Thatcher anyone?

how about the fucking tories - starving people to death under Cameron.

Labour did not regulate the banks - this is true

and Tories called for even less regulation than there the time

rich greedy bankers got us into this situation - and not one fucker has paid

and now we have a muppet called Ed as the opposition - erm...what opposition is that exactly? becuase you are spouting the same fucking rhetoric

its all poor bashing, we will make unemployed people work - poor people are scroungers rhetoric

and its shit.

how about collecting the 40 bil in taxes from large organisations that should fucking pay tax

how about regognising that the tories have borrowed more now than labour did.

pouring money into a broken rail system, pour my money in - pour my fucking wages into some rich fuckers pocket, then write off any debt, give them some more of my FUCKING money and repeat

spend my taxes on 46 million on a failed computer system for universal credit

take the money or ian duncan twat fuckhead smiths underpants out of my wages

shall i just hand over the FUCKING money for their second homes - well within commuter distance

oh and then there are the tosspots that turn up for an obligatory 23 mins to claim their £300 per day

or ATOS - tories just gave them my money so they could persecute the disabled and send terminally ill [people back to work, then when they stopped doing it untrained civil servants with fuck all medical knowledge are doing it - yes i am paying for that too

shall i pay for their gas and electric whilst others are starving

shall i?

this fucking government disgusts me
disgusts me.

i subsidise your £36 breakfast mr. ian duncan bastard smith, but you begrudge the poor enough to EAT - you fucking piece of shit.

this country is a country of shame.

claig Fri 27-Dec-13 23:09:53

Custardo, you're not the only one who is slightly peed off

"Fury with MPs is main reason for not voting – poll

Poll reveals anger, not boredom, lies behind drop in political engagement"

claig Fri 27-Dec-13 23:14:20

"Rage is the dominant sentiment across just about every sub-stratum of the electorate, but is especially marked among men, northerners, voters over 45 and the lower DE occupational grade.

Labour voters, too, are disproportionately cross. But supporters of Ukip, the party that put itself on the map in 2013 with big gains in local elections, reflect the mood of the times most intensely: more than two-thirds, 68%, say the thought of politics and politicians makes them more angry than anything else.

Deborah Mattinson, a former pollster to Gordon Brown and now an expert at BritainThinks, believes politicians have not begun to grasp the scale of the problem. "Voter disengagement is getting worse and worse," she says. "Nobody is really taking it seriously enough."

SnakeyMcBadass Fri 27-Dec-13 23:15:45

I love you, Custardo <cow eyes>

ReallyTired Fri 27-Dec-13 23:18:58

I don't think that new labour was the worse goverment. However they were spendthrifts trying to bribe their way back into power.

As far as bad govements what about

Pol Pot in Camobia
Syria's present goverment
Sadam Husain

as well as Nazi germany

Comparing Tony Blair and his cronies to some modern day dicators is unreasonable. New Labour meant well and the whole of Europe is in dire straights because of problems with the Euro. Prehaps the biggest mistake of new labour was having no controls on immigration from Europe, but that does not compare with mass murder.

BechuanaGirl Fri 27-Dec-13 23:22:17

Custardo.....well.....I don't think I want to argue with you for fear of being eaten.....

CustardoPaidforIDSsYFronts Fri 27-Dec-13 23:52:06

that is a real fear bechuanagirl, i have eaten everything in sight this xmas

MillyMollyMama Sat 28-Dec-13 00:52:50

No-one has mentioned Edward Heath and the three day week. Are you all too young to remember?

caroldecker Sat 28-Dec-13 12:10:19


do you really want to go back to the 70's?

The Thatcher govt revoluntionised economic thinking and turned this country around from the sinking mess we had been since the mid-60's. Major continued this thread and balanced the budget by the mid-90's. Blair won by promising to match Tory economic policy for the first term.
The rot, and increased spending began in 2000, with the Labour 2nd term, with spending ahead of income, despite a one off productivity benefit from IT and increased trade with China reducing costs for all.
Labour wasted £20 billion on the NHS IT spine which was scrapped and wasted money paying CTC to top rate taxpayers with only 1 child.
Hence, when the crash came, caused by Labour lack of regulation and the insane increase in house prices(because the Labour govt remioved housing costs from the RPI calcilation to keep rates low) (the banking crisis was largely UK and US, with some European instances, many countries had no banking problems)
When the coalition came to power, there was no money left, and the govt have to rebuild the economy to not rely on borrowing by the govt and the people - unfortunately this is painful.

CustardoPaidforIDSsYFronts Sat 28-Dec-13 13:26:14

but borrowing under this government has increased 3 x that of the previous labour govt

the austerity argument is a joke - if austerity were the real reason they would collect the unpaid taxes.

wehere you state that thatcher revolutionised economic thinking

I can tell you first hand she decimated the north, decimated it unecessarily. halved manufacturing from 20% of gdp to uber 10%

what i am not doing is saying that Labour were better, i think it is decidedly unelpful to reduce it down to labour versus conservative whewn thinking about politics

made money on north sea oil to have to spend it on the 3.5 million she made unemployed

sold off council housing - forcing a boom and bust economy, if you owned your own property that you bought for 10k and managed to sell for over 100k - great for you - but what about the rest of the people of this country now facing housing shortages and shit all chance of getting on the housing ladder becuase specifically becuase of thatchers policies?

oh and then what about interest rates rising to a whopping 17% in the early 80's

institute for fiscal studies suggests that poverty went up under thatcher from 13% to 22%

I guess one must have benefitted from thatchers changes to see it as positive in anyway

becuase from where i am standing, she decimated the north, made millions unemployed, started the farsicle boom and bust economy, created a housng shortage, broke communities and created the individualism and greed that had plagued this country ever since

ProfondoRosso Sat 28-Dec-13 17:37:43

Agree, Custardo. We'retalking about an I'm Alright Jack attitude that has yet to die off (and Blair did nothing to condemn).

If you could buy your own council house and sell it for profit, that's great for you. But I don't know how anyone could feel things were going grand when there were entire communities losing their source of income. Like the town my mum came from - wrecked. She had to support the strike because there was no other moral option. Her family were desperate, the stress on her father, a miner, most likely caused his early death. I thought the celebrating and bells and whistles, in general, were off colour after Thatcher's death. But I could not condemn my mother for cheering in the street when I told her.

It was the beginning of the end of communal responsibility - there's no such thing as society, remember?

caroldecker Sat 28-Dec-13 19:46:55

The full quote is :

I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it: 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society.

There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation

very much communal responsibility - but not government responsibility

will come back to the miners later

MrsWembley Sat 28-Dec-13 20:40:24

What gets me fucking riled is comments such as one I heard recently. I can't remember it exactly but it went along the lines of 'remember to visit/look after your elderly neighbours because the Government won't.'

Which is pretty much what has been said ^^. Society exists because we look after each other without waiting for the Government to do it. Anyone who turns around and says, 'Well, I'm not helping out because it's not my job, it's down to the Government!' is the selfish one in this, not the person who says, 'Actually, it's not the Government's job, it's mine.'

So when people start banging on about Thatcher and that half-remembered quote about society, do your fucking research and think about what she meant. Same reason Cameron goes on about volunteering. Not that I agree with a lot of what he's doing but he has the right idea about us all looking after each other instead of being a bunch of fucking jobsworths who want to pass the buck and ignore their responsibilities.


ohtanmybum Sun 29-Dec-13 17:53:28

Bravo, Custardo, top rant! I'm afraid that those who still worship at the shrine of the Blessed Margaret are those who did well under her policies and cared (and care) little for those who didn't. (Strange how the scales have fallen from their eyes on her political son, Blair, though.)
When I see peons to her magificence I just look at her mummy's boy abomination creation Right Dishonorable convicted criminal offspring, Mark, whom she ensured was heir to an hereditary baronetcy, but who is unwelcome in the US, Switzerland and Monaco. Well done, Maggie.

caroldecker Sun 29-Dec-13 18:30:36

Blair was never the political son of Thatcher - he wanted to be but did not have the courage to follow through, so just allowed Brown to waste excessive amounts of money whilst mouthing platitudes.
The majority of the country benefittted from Thatcher - the coal board received £1bn of subsidies in 1982, around £3bn in todays money. This is equivilant to 50% of todays unemployment benefit on around 200,000 workers - a subsidy of £15k per employee.

CustardoPaidforIDSsYFronts Wed 01-Jan-14 14:40:40

no thather decimated the north, huge unemployment and destruction of communities

link to the wastage of brown?

caroldecker Wed 01-Jan-14 16:10:44
caroldecker Wed 01-Jan-14 16:25:09

The North lost many manufacturing and mining jobs due to increased global trade and the refusal of the thatcher government to subsidise failing companies - as mentioned above, the mining subsidy in 1984 was £15k an employee.
Subsidies and import tariffs generally make a country worse off here
Thatcher did not cause the lack of competitiveness of uk mining and steel industry, just refused to make the rest of the country pay for it.

CustardoPaidforIDSsYFronts Wed 01-Jan-14 16:58:01

you say wastage where others say investment.

The datasets in the IFS report are based on a lot of assumptions "Measuring productivity in the public sector is, however, notoriously difficult. There is often no market for public services, and so there is no market price at which to value the output of the services. The Office for National Statistics’ UK Centre for the Measurement of Government Activity (UKCeMGA) has attempted to measure productivity in the public sector by comparing the output of public services (quantity, adjusted for quality where possible) with the inputs (spending, after Public spending under Labour making an allowance for pay and price increases). However for some public services, for instance defence and the police, measuring the quantity of ‘output’ is still too difficult and so the output is simply assumed to be equal to the inputs (which for the purposes of the national accounts was assumed to be the case for all public services prior to 1998)."

This ifs report here states

"By 2007 Labour had reduced public sector borrowing slightly
below the level it inherited from the Conservatives. And more of that borrowing was being used to finance investment rather than the day to day running costs of the public sector.
Labour had also reduced public sector debt below the level it had inherited. As a result the ‘golden rule’ and ‘sustainable investment rule’ that Gordon Brown had committed himself to on becoming Chancellor in 1997 were both met over the economic cycle that he eventually decided had run from 1997 – 98 to 2006 – 07"

CustardoPaidforIDSsYFronts Wed 01-Jan-14 17:07:53

utter tosh,

even the NUM official Ken Capstick stated that the miners knew that it wasn't sustainable in the long run as an industry

but there was a callousness to breakng these communities which was unwarrented, this wasn't an unbiased economic decision, the deceipt involved was huge

forges witness statements, the involvement of the MI5 for gods sake

refusal of hardship payments which had always been given before

this she said herslef in her memoir, ‘The Downing Street Years’:

“…it was only by ensuring that they lost face and were seen to be defeated and rejected by their own people that we could tame the militants.’ (P.343)”

it was about taming unions not at all about economic policy

it was the way it was done that was wholly inexcusable an wrong

caroldecker Wed 01-Jan-14 17:15:32

The report also quotes, straight after your quote:

But over the same ten years the vast majority of other leading industrial countries reduced their borrowing by more than the UK. And most also reduced their debt by more. So while the UK public finances were in better shape when the financial crisis began than they were when Labour came to power, the UK was in a worse position relative to most comparable countries

How was Thatcher supposed to close the mines? She proposed investment in mechanisation, as had been done in the steel industry and the miners began stricking - why not blame Scargill for the way it was done.

CustardoPaidforIDSsYFronts Wed 01-Jan-14 17:53:59

whats is the point you are discussing?

On thatcher

Between 1980 and 1993 there were six Acts of Parliament which increasingly restricted unions' ability to undertake lawful industrial action

Ninety five miners and supporters were the victims of a monumental police frame-up at Orgreave in July 1984, accused of conspiring to bring about a violent picket line confrontation with police. One year later, all 95 were acquitted.

mass arrests on the picket line with no justice in the courts

Curfews imposed and restrictions on travelling to other parts of the country.
refusal of benefits to strikers families
MI5 operations against the NUM and its leaders

a shift in the balance of social and economic wealth between rich and poor,

and then she sold off public housing to boot -

so she created a climate where there is a housing shortage and little public housing for those who need it
put energy in the hands of 6 large companies who all put their prices up = this isn't competition, its bullshit.

now, i'm all for competition between companies if it benefits the consumer - but they don't

becuase we - your ordinary people have little power, have no influence

and it will be so forever more becuase thatcher created fed and bred the rise of the 'i'm alright jack'

and i don't get it - i don't understand why rich people don't want to see a society that helps the less fortunate

honestly - i can't get my head round this way of thinking

caroldecker Wed 01-Jan-14 18:28:36

I think this suggests UK energy costs are cheaper than other in europe - probably due to competition
There were wrongs on both sides once the strikes had started, but the strikes were unnecessary and illegal, and some miners wanted them stopped but where over-ridden by Scargill and the NUM bbc piece
Ordinary people have never had power and the rich want to see a society that helps the less fortunate, but the argument is how you get there.
Your apparent belief that the rich want to crush the poor blinds you to the fact that most socialist policies actually hurt the poor in the long run.

CustardoPaidforIDSsYFronts Wed 01-Jan-14 22:02:54

you can't take energy prices - compare them to europe and infer that they are cheaper to the british public - nonsence

you can't negate thatchers dispicable behaviour by citing scargill

caroldecker Wed 01-Jan-14 22:47:04

On energy, why is the fact the UK has cheaper energy than Europe not potentially evidence of competition working?

I am saying that Thatcher did not start the strike, she did not back down. Had the NUM had a leadership like the steel workers, then there would probably have been investment in mines and some mines still working. It was union intransigence and appalling behaviour by the NUM which caused the problem.
The NUM has continued to not behave in its members interest - In 2012 it emerged in court cases between the NUM and its former president Arthur Scargill that a substantial proportion of union members' subscriptions was still being spent on expenses for Scargill, including unauthorised rent payments for a flat he owned in the Barbican, London

CustardoPaidforIDSsYFronts Wed 01-Jan-14 23:30:40

Thatcher couldnt start a strike - but she could make conditions such as one would be started and then behaved appaulingly from then on

prices must be seen in the context of people's ability to pay them, and fuel poverty is a major concern within the UK, where 6.5% of the population say they cannot afford to keep their homes adequately warm, according to European Union figures.

even the parliament put on a front of being concerned and summoned the big 6 over inflation rises

caroldecker Thu 02-Jan-14 12:31:36

She did not make the global economic conditions - the major state indusrtries needed significant investment in machinery which would cause job losses. This happened in the steel industry and the unions accepted that - the miners didn't. This is why we still have a steel industry and not a mining industry. The alternative was continued subsidy, which at £15k a head in 1982 was unaffordable.
My point about fuel and European prices was that there is no evidence the big 6 are making excessive profits on fuel. The fuel costs in other countries with government run providers are the same if not more than the UK.
You are correct that fuel is expensive for everyone, but you are after the wrong target - we need more heat efficient homes and less green taxes

CustardoPaidforIDSsYFronts Thu 02-Jan-14 12:47:23

I've answered that above
CustardoPaidforIDSsYFronts Wed 01-Jan-14 17:07:53

utter tosh,

even the NUM official Ken Capstick stated that the miners knew that it wasn't sustainable in the long run as an industry

but there was a callousness to breakng these communities which was unwarrented, this wasn't an unbiased economic decision, the deceipt involved was huge

forges witness statements, the involvement of the MI5 for gods sake

refusal of hardship payments which had always been given before

this she said herslef in her memoir, ‘The Downing Street Years’:

“…it was only by ensuring that they lost face and were seen to be defeated and rejected by their own people that we could tame the militants.’ (P.343)”

it was about taming unions not at all about economic policy

it was the way it was done that was wholly inexcusable an wrong

caroldecker Thu 02-Jan-14 15:48:19

So, how should it have been done?

as i understand it, in 1984, the govt proposed closing 20 loss making mines, the miners started an illegal strike, the govt refused to back down.

What was her alternative action?

I don't have that book, so cannot confirm the quote (can't find it anywhere else on the web other than the left wing blog you have lifted it from

Note you have neglected to mention the larger number of miners who lost their jobs under the previous Labour govt.

Wallison Thu 02-Jan-14 15:59:25

Re Thatcher and her no such thing as society - what she meant was that she wanted to shrink the state because she though philanthropy was enough. In her later years, she acknowledged that this was not the case due to how things had panned out. Bit late for the millions she put on the dole queue and the streets, but even she said that her vision was a pile of cunt.

NorthernLebkuchen Thu 02-Jan-14 16:04:59

Having a big grin at the statement that the labour government 'destroyed' this country. I mean seriously! In what way 'destroyed'? The majority of people still had jobs, there was no hyper inflation, law and order continued, the schools were open, public servants got paid, state provided healthcare continued. Just what does 'destroyed' mean? hmm

Wallison Thu 02-Jan-14 16:07:33

<<why on the left, are catastrophic policies merely 'misguided', like, you know, all the over 100 millions killed by those misguided policies of Stalin and Mao, >>

You must mix in some funny fucking circles, WellWobbly, because I've never heard anyone call Stalin 'misguided'.

caroldecker Thu 02-Jan-14 17:15:20

wallison - support for Thatcher comments?


the deepest recession in history, having the failed banks and the excessive borrowing

NorthernLebkuchen Thu 02-Jan-14 17:38:18

Yes I am aware of the recession thanks. 'Destroyed' is still way overblown. Look at North Korea for a country destroyed by it's government, not the UK.

Wallison Thu 02-Jan-14 17:39:39

Not sure what you mean, caroldecker. I think Thatcher was just about the worst thing that's ever happened to this country, but even I can see that she genuinely believed in the crap she came out with - she was wrong, but she did believe it. I saw one of her cronies - can't remember who it was, Tebbit or Major or someone - being interviewed and they said that she was disappointed that shrinking the state and allowing unfettered accumulation of wealth by those at the top of the pile did not lead to unbridled largesse or trickle down or any of the guff she talked about.

Islenka Thu 02-Jan-14 18:30:05

My DH (Kurdish, under the Iraqi government/genocide) and a whole ton of miner families would probably disagree with the statement 'worst government ever'. hmm

Wallison Thu 02-Jan-14 18:49:38

Blair did kill a tonne of people though. His domestic policies were, for the most part, fine - apart from on housing, but every govt from 1979 onwards has got that wrong. But his foreign policy - Jesus. Still to this day there are no accurate figures for the number of deaths he caused in Iraq, much less Afghanistan. What he did to innocent civilians including women and children in those countries is truly horrific, all waged as a war on an abstract noun in support of a dead-eyed halfwit on the other side of the world.

caroldecker Thu 02-Jan-14 19:38:25

Thatcher and Regan's policies have been generally adopted by all western nations around the globe and are being copied by the Chinese etc. They are generally regarded by anyone who knows anything about economics and the Labour party as correct. The reforms were painful and the successes were partially destryed by the Blair and Brown years who threw lots of money at the NHS and education and got nothing for it, as the recent NHS scandals and 15 year old global education results are showing.
Money is not the answer, public ownership is not the answer - allowing people who fail to suffer is the answer.
The banking crisis was badly dealt with by Brown as the individuals were not held responsible, similarly the NHS scandals, no-one has taken responsibility - the nurses at Staffordshire should have lost thier jobs, along with most of the management.
Had that been a private hospital, that is what would have happened because it would have gone bankrupt.

Wallison Thu 02-Jan-14 20:10:00

Thatcher was a batshit alcoholic fucking madwoman and Reagan (note the spelling) was fucking senile.

Good company you're keeping.

NiceTabard Thu 02-Jan-14 20:19:14

LOL @ labour govt 97-10 being worst government in history grin

Enjoying the lists.

Have we had a list yet placing blair as more evil than Ceaușescu?


caroldecker Thu 02-Jan-14 21:37:35

lose the argument and start being abusive - good level of debate

Wallison Thu 02-Jan-14 22:09:16

I'm not 'starting' being abusive - believe me, whenever I talk about Thatcher, I invariably swear. I also fail to see where I've lost the argument. You support a mad alcoholic who herself admitted that her policies were a pile of shite. I don't. You lose.

handcream Thu 02-Jan-14 22:33:57

I agree with caroldecker. And why all the abusive comments from Wallison and Custardo. The miners got greedy. They asked for 35% pay increases and were manipulated by Scargill for his own ends.

Mining was a dying industry and something needed to be done. Subsidising industries that are failing is not the answer.

Neither is an overblown state. It is becoming more apparent that when something happens to some people they want to blame Thatcher, Blair, Cameron - anyone rather than take some personsal responsibility. Not everyone but to compare any of our governments to Pol Pot and co is just daft. And if it is really as bad as you are claiming then why dont you leave? Go to a country that you dont hate.

Wallison Thu 02-Jan-14 22:48:30

Yes, the miners should just have taken personal responsibility rather than blaming Thatcher for taking away their livelihoods, criminalising them and sanctioning them being beaten up by the police. All of that was their own fault.

And it was the thread starter and some subsequent tories who claimed that the Blair govt was the worst in the history of the world, so I suggest you take your beef up with them.

As for leaving the country - why should I? If everyone who disagrees with a particular govt has to leave whichever country that govt is in, then caroldecker & co should have fucked off to China years ago when Blair was in power.

Wallison Thu 02-Jan-14 22:49:40

Actually Cameron et al should also have fucked off to China years ago, by your reckoning. I'm starting to warm to the idea.

TheOriginalSteamingNit Thu 02-Jan-14 22:52:27

Yeah, I hated having more money and better public services.

handcream Fri 03-Jan-14 10:31:47

Wallison - you clearly hate this country. Why would you want to stay?

Wallison Fri 03-Jan-14 11:20:10

Well done handcream - you are now part of a long and proud tradition of wanting to remove people who criticise a govt.

handcream Fri 03-Jan-14 11:40:14

Why dont you try and become an MP - change things as opposed to just using abusive language and blaming all and sundry for everything.

Wallison Fri 03-Jan-14 12:07:24

I don't want to be an MP. Not that it is any of your fucking business, I do what I can to change things through an organisation that I volunteer for where not only do I support individual people but also campaign on wider issues having identified trends that are negatively impacting on those who come to us for help. I don't 'hate this country'; I hate what politicians and those with power are doing to it - there's a difference.

caroldecker Fri 03-Jan-14 12:16:06

But wallison all you are posting is unsupported abuse. You have not answered any of the questions and not come up with any useful input on how things should change.
It all very well being sat in your own negative pit of hate, but that will not change anything and only hurt yourself.
It would be nice to know what your solutions may be, and also an opinion on how Thatcher could have acted differently - however you don't have to play and can continue spitting from the sidelines if it makes you happy.

Wallison Fri 03-Jan-14 12:28:42

I answered your semi-literate 'question' about Thatcher despite it being worded in such a way that I was unsure as to what you were asking. I have also addressed the rather personal attacks telling me to leave the country. Have there been other questions directed to me? Because if so, I haven't seen them.

handcream Fri 03-Jan-14 13:49:20

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Wallison Fri 03-Jan-14 13:55:29

I'm not the one making personal attacks and telling people to leave the country, handcream.

CustardoPaidforIDSsYFronts Fri 03-Jan-14 13:57:42

is this still going? I forgot about this thread - be back in a bit, just m,arking my palce

handcream Fri 03-Jan-14 14:02:25

Wallison - have you read some of your answers. If I really hated things as much as you seem to I would do something about it. Make real changes not just knock everyone in general who you think has brought on your woes.

Wallison Fri 03-Jan-14 14:04:35

I have told you what I am doing about it. I don't see why I should, when you have told me to leave the country and called me 'deranged', but still I did. Maybe if you want a debate, you could leave the personal attacks out of it.

CustardoPaidforIDSsYFronts Fri 03-Jan-14 14:06:54

I haven't been abusive, if I have report the post please

Wallison Fri 03-Jan-14 14:09:08

I have been abusive, but to Thatcher and Reagan. I guess they could report me through the power of the afterlife - do you get mumsnet in Hades?

lottieandmia Fri 03-Jan-14 14:12:36

Excellent posts from Custardo.

CustardoPaidforIDSsYFronts Fri 03-Jan-14 14:13:23

I think it is poor form to tell someone with a different pov they have chips on their shoulders and sound deranged.

I also do not understand the comments 'do something about it'

Yes, whatever your personal circumstances, level of debt, children, relationship and wider family issues, personal health etc...just become an MP hmm because we can all afford to do that can't we not very well thought through me thinks

caroldecker Fri 03-Jan-14 15:45:37

I'm not suggesting become an MP, I am asking for potential solutions/changes. Custardo has mentioned the tax gap, although there is much debate about how much is is and very little appears to be big business - most appears to be VAT fraud and underpayment by SME's - so basically the self employed fiddling thier taxes.
There is also some ill-thought through discussion in international transer pricing and tax of international companies.
Again Wallison what would you do?

handcream Fri 03-Jan-14 16:18:50

I was listening to someone on LBC this morning complaining from the medical profession (ambulance personnel I think) saying that although teachers do a great job really any pay rises should go to him and his colleagues.

Its funny, we are all living longer. I will get my pension at 68 - my DM got her's at 60 and we all agree that something has got to change especially around retirement ages but many many professions are claiming they shouldnt be targetted. They are different and should keep their old retirement ages which are often under 60!

So, I will be burnt out by 60 - can I retire then too....

NiceTabard Fri 03-Jan-14 19:50:33

People who think thatcher was appalling hate the UK and should leave?

Crikey mikey.

Easy to see where the real hatred lies on this thread, TBH.

CustardoPaidforIDSsYFronts Sat 04-Jan-14 00:42:30

went it gets to a point where we can't support old people, i too wonder what will be proposed euthenasia by lottery

caroldecker Sat 04-Jan-14 02:33:18

Again come up with answers please not just complaints - maybe there is not enough money to do what you want

Wallison Sat 04-Jan-14 10:18:51

<<I am asking for potential solutions/changes>>

<<Again come up with answers please not just complaints <<

Why? Does Cameron come on here for policy advice? Who are you to say what people should and shouldn't be discussing?

CustardoPaidforIDSsYFronts Sat 04-Jan-14 13:06:41

ive come up with the answer, collect the owed taxes, close tax loopholes

whats your answer carol?

CustardoPaidforIDSsYFronts Sat 04-Jan-14 13:07:57

dont spend millions on expenses

dont let whitehall officials spend 17 m on bunny suits and hotels in Brazil


Wallison Sat 04-Jan-14 14:53:08

I'd vote for you, Custardo.

I do actually have a few ideas of my own as well - they involve investment aka 'spending money' but it's spending money in the right way - unlike this unelected shower who are spending more money than Blair ever did thanks to their own misguided policies - unemployment costs money, homelessness costs money, an inflated housing market costs money etc.

- renationalise energy companies and rail companies. Profits to go back into the public coffers. Like I say, it's an investment. We're spending more public money on the railways than we ever did when they were nationalised. Privatisation hasn't worked - it's more expensive both for the country and for passengers. We've given it enough time, and it's proved unsuccessful so time for a change of tack.

- embark on a real programme of house-building, especially publicly owned housing. Again, we've tried the free market, and it's been a disaster - more people homeless, more people in temporary accommodation, poor quality stock of private sector rentals due to lack of regulation, and £20billion a year on housing benefit due to unaffordability of housing. In a similar vein, bring back rent controls and restore security of tenure for all tenants. If that means fewer btl-ers, all to the good. The price of housing is one of the biggest reasons why there is such a gap between wages and living costs.

- raise the minimum wage to a living wage. If a company cannot afford to pay a living wage to its employees, then it shouldn't be in business because it is clearly not viable. Tax credits are merely a subsidy for these unsuccessful employers - time they went to the wall.

There's more I'm sure but that would be enough to be getting on with.

CustardoPaidforIDSsYFronts Sat 04-Jan-14 15:06:31

wallinson are you owen jones in disguise - because i just fell in love with you

Wallison Sat 04-Jan-14 15:42:23

Haha cheers Custardo. Sorry to disappoint but I am not Owen Jones - I do think he is fab though.

ironman Mon 06-Jan-14 10:06:26

Owen Jones is a fake, who does not understand the working classes, of whom he writes about. His book 'Chavs' was crap.

ironman Mon 06-Jan-14 10:31:56

Owen Jones when interviewed by Andrew Neil did not know what was talking about! Jones was saying MP's earned over a million a year, he looked a right dick, that and his fake Lancashire accent. This man is a complete idiot, even worse he writes for the Guardian! Reads it as well, while he discusses with his other Guardian mates sorry friends from Primrose Hill, how awful are the Chavs who shop in Primark, now that Woolworth's is closed.
He's typical of the fascist liberal elite, who despise those they say they support.
Must have a brew now I've castigated that wxxker!

nonmifairidere Mon 06-Jan-14 11:19:01

OJ bingo, ironfilings? House!

caroldecker Mon 06-Jan-14 19:24:06


Thank-you for laying out your ideas - agree the railways were not privitised properly, but doubling of train journeys since privitisation in 1995 suggests something is better than the old BR.
Not sure what benefit nationalising the power companies would be as the cost is prohibitive and there is no evidence nationalised power would be cheaper without subsidies -destroying the benefit of nationalisation.

Agree with more house building - dislike rent controls as they are shown not to work around the world and prevent people moving - some better security of tenure could help people

an increase to the minimum wage would destroy the profitability of many companies, so those currently earning something would earn nothing - we live in a global economy and therefore must compete globally. It would also destry the employability of many people who's 'work' value is less then the new wage.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now