Thatcher versus Johnson

[Future17]

I was too young when Thatcher was PM to form any educated view on her or her leadership at the time. I've obviously read a lot about her over the years since, with the majority of it negative. However, I'm struggling to believe that, all things considered, she was worse than Johnson.

Johnson's many faults have obviously been on display for many years, but I feel he's gotten worse since becoming PM. His handling of the latest Hancock debacle, including his "the matter is closed" chat and his blatant lies about it today have pushed me to believe he's the worst PM of my lifetime.

What are the thoughts of those who lived through Thatcher (or any other PM for that matter)?

[Bostonhibby]

Thatcher, who I despised, was a conviction politician, Bozo is a butterfly who flits from whatever happens to suit his vanity and sounds popular at the time.

I genuinely do not recall Thatcher dodging questions or issues so blatantly or so frequently as Bozo. "The ladies not for turning" was one of her famous phrases. An interesting contrast with Bozo's twisting, turning an U turning.

Thatcher's favourite was Cecil Parkinson, an oilier toad I never thought we'd encounter, but even he had to walk for his indiscretions.

Johnson seems to be hamstrung by his own low standards of behaviour and consequently is surrounded by people who behave just like him or know where the bodies are buried and are effectively unsackable.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[McSwanky]

I was too young when Thatcher was PM to form any educated view on her or her leadership at the time. I've obviously read a lot about her over the years since, with the majority of it negative. However, I'm struggling to believe that, all things considered, she was worse than Johnson.

Johnson's many faults have obviously been on display for many years, but I feel he's gotten worse since becoming PM. His handling of the latest Hancock debacle, including his "the matter is closed" chat and his blatant lies about it today have pushed me to believe he's the worst PM of my lifetime.

What are the thoughts of those who lived through Thatcher (or any other PM for that matter)?

Honestly, I don't think you can compare the two. Thatcher was consistent, she had a plan, she knew what she wanted for the country, and she went about getting it in whatever ways she could. Johnson is a complete ****wit, no idea what he's doing, has no vision for the country, only cares about staying in power. Will happily flip flop from one lie to another to try and slither out of whatever the latest disaster he and his cronies have managed to get the country into.

Totally different beasts for me. Who was worse? I can't answer that question, Thatcher was cold blooded and calculating, Johnson is simply a fool.

[Santa Cruz]

Thatcher was ruthless and hard-line, she wasn't incompetent though, she had leadership qualities that Johnson will never possess. I'd take Thatcher over Johnson, never voted for her and the only 2 protests I've ever taken part in were against her Gov's policy's.

I think John Smith would have been an excellent PM, we got Blair, took me a while to warm to him, liked him for a spell, disliked him at the end of his premiership.

[wookie70]

I hate Thatcher to my core as she blazed the trail for all the people haters that followed her. However she did have beliefs and competence and managed to do her job without personal scandal and was hard working. She was a witch but at least you knew she believed in the privatisation and theft of all that the people owned and the crazy belief that wealth trickled down. Johnson is a lazy, self- serving maniac who has no interest in politics save what it can do for him. They are both evil in their own way. Thatcher went out to destroy communities and put power in the hands of the rich. Johnson is doing the same but others are pulling his puppet strings. Britain would be a far better place if neither had been born

[Berwickhibby]

I hated Thatcher for the destruction of Trade Unions and Bozo for being a self serving arse

[Keith_M]

Thatcher is still well loved by those that benefited from her uncaring ruthlessness... and hated by those who remember her part in destroying the Unions, handing public Services to the self-serving rich and helped ended a multitude of British industries, from which many areas of the UK have still to recover.

Bozo is incompetent and Thatcher was very competent... at being evil.

[Peevemor]

Thatcher would have hated Johnson and wouldn't have had him anywhere near her government.

For all her faults, you at least knew what to expect from her. Johnson doesn't even seem sure what to expect from himself.

[Santa Cruz]

I think we may have a thread here where we're all actually going to agree :greengrin touches wood whilst typing

[Smartie]

It's funny how we'd probably be unanimous in hating Thatcher but also unanimous in holding a bit of grudging respect for her somewhere deep down.

There is simply nothing to respect about Johnson.

He should be an open goal for a semi-credible opposition and the fact that he is still polling as well as he is speaks volumes about the absolute state of modern day England.

[ACLeith]

I think we may have a thread here where we're all actually going to agree :greengrin touches wood whilst typing

Steady SC, that's going a bit far. But I agree with everything that's been said 🤭

[Bostonhibby]

Thatcher by two pinfalls and a submission.

Her leg trap camel clutch and reverse chin lock were legendary.

Unless of course Bozo tries to pay someone to beat her up.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[Crunchie]

Thatcher is still well loved by those that benefited from her uncaring ruthlessness... and hated by those who remember her part in destroying the Unions, handing public Services to the self-serving rich and helped ended a multitude of British industries, from which many areas of the UK have still to recover.

Bozo is incompetent and Thatcher was very competent... at being evil.
I was brought up in Thatcher's years but I managed to get a job when leaving school and was quite fortunate (more than a lot of my mates were) that it was an apprenticeship which more or less guaranteed me work for 5 years at least, as it turned out it was a lot longer.
As a shop steward for 15 years or so of those years I've no experience of her ruining the unions.
I was involved with USDAW and NUPE and in fact the people who destroyed NUPE were the on the take officials who amalgamated with NALGO and COHSE basically shafting it's members into amalgamation with it's bosses union.
I always held the belief she was evil as well, but there is no denying she took the country by the scruff of the neck and long term made a lot of working/middle class people very wealthy.
I and other members of my immediate and extended family along with numerous friends were beneficiaries of her right to buy scheme which is still running down south but taken away by wee nippy and her crew up here.
In comparison to Bozo? It's light comparing Bamber Gascoigne to me, there is none :rolleyes:

[Ozyhibby]

It’s a shame all we can do in Scotland is discuss which leader England chooses for us is least worst.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[weecounty hibby]

She was a nasty, vindictive ******* and I was delighted when she died, the only problem was that it didn't come sooner. She confined communities, not just individuals or families, into decades of decline and poverty.
She was a great politician though and the right to buy scheme was genius. People who have a mortgage don't go on strike easily. My grandfather and my mum both refused to buy their council houses as in their words "these are for working folk who can't afford a mortgage" She wanted folk with as much debt as possible to keep them working and worried about their jobs when they actually had one so made it easier to get a mortgage. She is the reason that housing stock is in short supply just now as well. While selling these houses off she never built any affordable housing. Look at the old council houses now and how many of them are back as rented accommodation but at a huge cost so someone can make money out of them. What would be a couple of hundred quid a month is now 7/8 hundred so the owner can make a profit.

She did away with the working class. There are now only those who have and those who don't. How many of us working class types now have shares? I in no way consider myself middle class but I have a pretty big house, two cars, motorcycle, multiple holidays per year and my kids want for nothing. Growing up that was what well off folk had, my mother barely left Scotland and worked 3 cleaning jobs to keep me and my brother when we were young. We had absolutely **** all growing up through the 80s and I have been lucky to have worked my arse off to get a decent well paid job.
She also made it acceptable to look after yourself and **** everyone else.

There is no comparison to Johnson, she was a politician who had her ideals and strategy and kept it up and although totally opposite to mine she stuck with them. Johnson is a shysters who would change his policies and values at the drop of a hat as long as he was the main beneficiary.

The only thing they have that's comparable is how much I detest both

[Bostonhibby]

She was a nasty, vindictive ******* and I was delighted when she died, the only problem was that it didn't come sooner. She confined communities, not just individuals or families, into decades of decline and poverty.
She was a great politician though and the right to buy scheme was genius. People who have a mortgage don't go on strike easily. My grandfather and my mum both refused to buy their council houses as in their words "these are for working folk who can't afford a mortgage" She wanted folk with as much debt as possible to keep them working and worried about their jobs when they actually had one so made it easier to get a mortgage. She is the reason that housing stock is in short supply just now as well. While selling these houses off she never built any affordable housing. Look at the old council houses now and how many of them are back as rented accommodation but at a huge cost so someone can make money out of them. What would be a couple of hundred quid a month is now 7/8 hundred so the owner can make a profit.

She did away with the working class. There are now only those who have and those who don't. How many of us working class types now have shares? I in no way consider myself middle class but I have a pretty big house, two cars, motorcycle, multiple holidays per year and my kids want for nothing. Growing up that was what well off folk had, my mother barely left Scotland and worked 3 cleaning jobs to keep me and my brother when we were young. We had absolutely **** all growing up through the 80s and I have been lucky to have worked my arse off to get a decent well paid job.
She also made it acceptable to look after yourself and **** everyone else.

There is no comparison to Johnson, she was a politician who had her ideals and strategy and kept it up and although totally opposite to mine she stuck with them. Johnson is a shysters who would change his policies and values at the drop of a hat as long as he was the main beneficiary.

The only thing they have that's comparable is how much I detest both[emoji106]Respect

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[Bangkok Hibby]

Both Tory's...ergo *****. Close the thread.

[Northernhibee]

No question. Johnson - a man sacked for lying, who doesn’t tell how many children he has (and I’d love to know if he knew the answer), is a serial adulterer (even when his wife was undergoing treatment for cancer), Bullingdon Club member, filmed with a friend who wanted to beat up a journalist and when played it back in the future laughed through it, wrote an article on why leaving the EU would be a bad idea then fronted a campaign full of lies that led us to leave the EU, all to further his career. Cronyism, wallpapergate, Living in a John Lewis skip. Bum boys, picanninies with watermelon smiles, letterboxes. 140,000 dead and failed to protect us three times by dithering. Bodies piled high. No accountability for Hancock, Gove, Patel, Rees Mogg. Suggesting best thing to remember Jo Cox was to “Get Brexit Done”.

Thatcher was evil but had conviction and standards, low as they were. Boris Johnson is an evil, unprincipled greasy Etonian **** who has set this country back decades for his own ego.

[He's here!]

I'm not entirely clear what the question here is. Is it who was/is the more effective politician/PM? If so then it's Thatcher all day long.

On one hand she's the devil incarnate who smashed the unions and ravaged the UK's mining communities. On the other she's the saviour who dragged the UK out of the dark ages. Either way she was an extraordinary leader. To be the first female PM and assert that level of control over the UK political landscape for so long marked her out as a unique woman. As others have said, whatever you thought of her politics she was utterly dedicated to her role, which she played with often ruthless, unwavering conviction (pretty much the complete opposite of Johnson).

[wookie70]

I'm not entirely clear what the question here is. Is it who was/is the more effective politician/PM? If so then it's Thatcher all day long.

On one hand she's the devil incarnate who smashed the unions and ravaged the UK's mining communities. On the other she's the saviour who dragged the UK out of the dark ages. Either way she was an extraordinary leader. To be the first female PM and assert that level of control over the UK political landscape for so long marked her out as a unique woman. As others have said, whatever you thought of her politics she was utterly dedicated to her role, which she played with often ruthless, unwavering conviction (pretty much the complete opposite of Johnson).

Thank Christ she was unique. She was evil and a bully. She was also one of the first politicians to alter her image and her voice etc and start the style over substance. Not unlike Johnsons unkempt appearance and bumbling through sentences. Both are frauds in terms of themselves.

She used the funds from utilities, right to buy, Scotland's Oil and anything else she could sell off to create a false sense of the country prospering imo. Yes some prospered but many more struggled harder. Record unemployment and left with far more unemployed than there was when she took office. She only balanced the books in her final year with her power dwindling and others having more say. She left the people of the country with far less assets, owing more money and a ridiculously unbalanced economy which would greatly hinder us in later years. She also saved her job by using a war and causing needless death so plenty to compare her to Johnson there too. I agree she was very different in terms of personality but both Johnson and her hated those who struggle to make do and saw them as lesser humans. She was a soulless, heartless bitch of a woman and Johnson is much the same. An empty vessel with a void where his heart and should should be.

Scotland has been decimated by both and wanted neither of them

[1875godsgift]

Thank Christ she was unique. She was evil and a bully. She was also one of the first politicians to alter her image and her voice etc and start the style over substance. Not unlike Johnsons unkempt appearance and bumbling through sentences. Both are frauds in terms of themselves.

She used the funds from utilities, right to buy, Scotland's Oil and anything else she could sell off to create a false sense of the country prospering imo. Yes some prospered but many more struggled harder. Record unemployment and left with far more unemployed than there was when she took office. She only balanced the books in her final year with her power dwindling and others having more say. She left the people of the country with far less assets, owing more money and a ridiculously unbalanced economy which would greatly hinder us in later years. She also saved her job by using a war and causing needless death so plenty to compare her to Johnson there too. I agree she was very different in terms of personality but both Johnson and her hated those who struggle to make do and saw them as lesser humans. She was a soulless, heartless bitch of a woman and Johnson is much the same. An empty vessel with a void where his heart and should should be.

Scotland has been decimated by both and wanted neither of them

Agree with all that, but to her credit she probably wouldn't hide in a fridge to avoid the heat.

[Berwickhibby]

Scotland has been decimated by both and wanted neither of them[/QUOTE]

Apart from the 11 SNP MPs who crossed the chamber and voted with the Torys in a vote of no confidence against Callaghan which Thatcher won by a single vote . Ushered in Thatcher for 3 nightmare terms.

[Peevemor]

[

Scotland has been decimated by both and wanted neither of them

Apart from the 11 SNP MPs who crossed the chamber and voted with the Torys in a vote of no confidence against Callaghan which Thatcher won by a single vote . Ushered in Thatcher for 3 nightmare terms.

Is there any need to bash the SNP on a thread about the Tories?

You don't mention that the SNP had already submitted their own motion of no confidence over the farcical 40% rule in the devolution vote. Neither do you mention that the vote of no confidence took place in March but Callaghan's government's mandate was up in October anyway.

But crack on, blame the SNP... :rolleyes:

[Berwickhibby]

Is there any need to bash the SNP on a thread about the Tories?

You don't mention that the SNP had already submitted their own motion of no confidence over the farcical 40% rule in the devolution vote. Neither do you mention that the vote of no confidence took place in March but Callaghan's government's mandate was up in October anyway.

But crack on, blame the SNP... :rolleyes:

I blamed the SNP then and my opinion of the Tartan Tories of the 70s has still not changed

[Peevemor]

I blamed the SNP then and my opinion of the Tartan Tories of the 70s has still not changed

That's up to you, but Thatcher won that election with a majority of 43 seats. Do you really believe that things would have been much different 6 months later?

[Berwickhibby]

That's up to you, but Thatcher won that election with a majority of 43 seats. Do you really believe that things would have been much different 6 months later?

As a Labour socialist, I cannot understand how anyone in Scotland could side with the Tory's not then not now.

[Peevemor]

As a Labour socialist, I cannot understand how anyone in Scotland could side with the Tory's not then not now.

I take it you're being ironic, given all the recent examples of anti-SNP collusion between Labour & the Tories?

[Berwickhibby]

I take it you're being ironic, given all the recent examples of anti-SNP collusion between Labour & the Tories?

Which is disgusting and I certainly do not approve, but my original point still stands that some Scots did actively want Thatcher .... namely 11 SNP MPs as well as others

[Ozyhibby]

As a Labour socialist, I cannot understand how anyone in Scotland could side with the Tory's not then not now.

[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23] Labour and the Tories have practically merged in Scotland already.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Which is disgusting and I certainly do not approve, but my original point still stands that some Scots did actively want Thatcher .... namely 11 SNP MPs as well as others

That’s like saying everyone who wanted Fenton out, wanted Butcher and everything that happened with him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Berwickhibby]

That’s like saying everyone who wanted Fenton out, wanted Butcher and everything that happened with him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Really, the main difference was in 79 the majority of Scots knew that under Thatcher life was going to be hell and Nationalised industry and the unions were always going to be her first target.

[Peevemor]

Really, the main difference was in 79 the majority of Scots new that under Thatcher life was going to be hell and Nationalised industry and the unions were always going to be her first target.

And it was going to happen, vote of no confidence or not.

[Berwickhibby]

And it was going to happen, vote of no confidence or not.

Oh that makes it ok then... 🙄

[Santa Cruz]

Really, the main difference was in 79 the majority of Scots new that under Thatcher life was going to be hell and Nationalised industry and the unions were always going to be her first target.

She decimated the coal mining industry, left small communities with long term employment problems and all the associated problems that come with unemployment, it was horrific watching the picket line battles on the News and speaking to ex miners decades later who's families were still feeling the consequences. This is a genuine question, was she (subconsciously) ahead of her time doing this, would the Greens for instance not want to move away from coal as a source of fuel if she hadn't done this?

I ask because I put my hands up and admit having limited knowledge on eco/environmental sustainability policies.

[Peevemor]

Oh that makes it ok then... 🙄

It means that the whole Thatcher era wasn't the SNP's fault, which is what you'd have us believe.

[Kato]

She decimated the coal mining industry, left small communities with long term employment problems and all the associated problems that come with unemployment, it was horrific watching the picket line battles on the News and speaking to ex miners decades later who's families were still feeling the consequences. This is a genuine question, was she (subconsciously) ahead of her time doing this, would the Greens for instance not want to move away from coal as a source of fuel if she hadn't done this?

I ask because I put my hands up and admit having limited knowledge on eco/environmental sustainability policies.It wasnt a environmental policy, Australian coal was stockpiled for use during the strike and imported afterwards.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[Berwickhibby]

She decimated the coal mining industry, left small communities with long term employment problems and all the associated problems that come with unemployment, it was horrific watching the picket line battles on the News and speaking to ex miners decades later who's families were still feeling the consequences. This is a genuine question, was she (subconsciously) ahead of her time doing this, would the Greens for instance not want to move away from coal as a source of fuel if she hadn't done this?

I ask because I put my hands up and admit having limited knowledge on eco/environmental sustainability policies.

Back in the 70s/80s the Eco argument was small. Other than stunts by Rainbow warrior the Greens/Eco activists were very much a minority. Thatcher was not Eco friendly in anyway her dislike of coal was down to be it a Nationalised Industry which had the strongest Trade Union and her intention was always to crush them. Once the NUM were no longer a threat she moved onto others.

[Berwickhibby]

It wasnt a environmental policy, Australian coal was stockpiled for use during the strike and imported afterwards.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

:agree: and Polish coal which came into Leith Docks

[Berwickhibby]

It means that the whole Thatcher era wasn't the SNP's fault, which is what you'd have us believe.

I never said that ...you are deflecting....I responded to a comment that about no one wanting Thatcher in Scotland...which is untrue ...the SNP at the time obviously did

[Santa Cruz]

It wasnt a environmental policy, Australian coal was stockpiled for use during the strike and imported afterwards.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

Totally get that, that's why I inserted (subconsciously). Was just wondering if this very brutal decimation of a crucial industry in small communities inadvertently was a good thing from an environmental point of view and a policy the Greens would have pursued had Thatcher never existed. Like I say, don't have a great deal of knowledge on the subject.

[Peevemor]

I never said that ...you are deflecting....I responded to a comment that about no one wanting Thatcher in Scotland...which is untrue ...the SNP at the time obviously did

I think the SNP were more likely to have wanted the SNP in Scotland - but maybe I'm wide of the mark.

[BroxburnHibee]

They are/were both vile politicians. BoJo just goes wherever he needs to for popularity. Thatcher had her ideology which she went after with full gusto and the English loved her for until she decided that the 'Poll Tax' was a good idea.

Inflicting it on Scotland a year earlier than down south was the main reason I'd say for their terminal decline up here, she could not be convinced of how bad an idea it was. When it was introduced in England it took full blown riots to convince her otherwise.

Frankie Boyle nailed it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmmomV-ax-s

[Kato]

Totally get that, that's why I inserted (subconsciously). Was just wondering if this very brutal decimation of a crucial industry in small communities inadvertently was a good thing from an environmental point of view and a policy the Greens would have pursued had Thatcher never existed. Like I say, don't have a great deal of knowledge on the subject.I see what you mean but would substitute "inadvertently " for "subconsciously".


She didnt give a hoot for the environment, like the vast majority of people at the time. The Greens back then would have preferred coal to nuclear, while the tories just wanted "cheap".

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

I see what you mean but would substitute "inadvertently " for "subconsciously".


She didnt give a hoot for the environment, like the vast majority of people at the time. The Greens back then would have preferred coal to nuclear, while the tories just wanted "cheap".

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

Didn’t we all want cheap? Fuel poverty was a lot worse in those days than it is now?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Santa Cruz]

I see what you mean but would substitute "inadvertently " for "subconsciously".


She didnt give a hoot for the environment, like the vast majority of people at the time. The Greens back then would have preferred coal to nuclear, while the tories just wanted "cheap".

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

Ok, apologies for incorrect wording. So, say we never went nuclear and still had coal, would the Greens have pursued this policy of not relying on coal as a source of fuel? Think Thatcher was never a thing, miners strikes never happened, was this inevitable anyway and from an environmental point of view now with hindsight a good thing?

[weecounty hibby]

The difference between the coal industry then and the oil industry now is that there will be plans in place to redeploy and create new jobs from the oil industry. Thatcher couldn't give a **** about miners/steelworkers/shipbuilders etc. She was happy to see these working class areas with heavy industry run down and people who were highly skilled thrown on the scrapheap.

[Smartie]

Ok, apologies for incorrect wording. So, say we never went nuclear and still had coal, would the Greens have pursued this policy of not relying on coal as a source of fuel? Think Thatcher was never a thing, miners strikes never happened, was this inevitable anyway and from an environmental point of view now with hindsight a good thing?

Known at the time but even more with hindsight, the situation in the UK that Thatcher inherited was far from ideal and something needed done.

The more we’ve learned about the environment the more we’ve realised that burning coal is hugely undesirable, but it wasn’t considered so at the time.

The problem most folk have with Thatcher is that she couldn’t care less about collateral human damage when it came to achieving her objectives. She’s damaged people, places and communities to the extent that they haven’t recovered to this day.

If the Greens or any of the parties with common decency were to commit to an objective such as moving away from coal or nuclear, then I don’t think it would be done in a way that left so much human misery in it’s wake. There would /should be plans in place to transfer jobs to new industries such as renewables, and they would / should be situated close to where the old industries were.

It is worth being open minded to the merits of stuff such as free markets, small government a private healthcare, which may benefit many people. But the fact that so many people suffered so badly under the Tories means that there will be always be natural suspicion in many areas when it comes to ideologies associated with them.

[Santa Cruz]

The difference between the coal industry then and the oil industry now is that there will be plans in place to redeploy and create new jobs from the oil industry. Thatcher couldn't give a **** about miners/steelworkers/shipbuilders etc. She was happy to see these working class areas with heavy industry run down and people who were highly skilled thrown on the scrapheap.

Get that, think we all agree, caring wasn't a virtue she held. Just looking at this objectively, did she inadvertently implement a harsh policy with substantial impact that would have been pursued at a much later date by the Greens anyway. I don't know many oil workers but I would be interested to hear their views on redeployment, forced occupational change can be difficult to adapt to.

[wookie70]

Scotland has been decimated by both and wanted neither of them

Apart from the 11 SNP MPs who crossed the chamber and voted with the Torys in a vote of no confidence against Callaghan which Thatcher won by a single vote . Ushered in Thatcher for 3 nightmare terms.[/QUOTE]

And in the election Scotland returned twice as many Labour seats as Tory ones and still got Thatcher.

[Santa Cruz]

Apart from the 11 SNP MPs who crossed the chamber and voted with the Torys in a vote of no confidence against Callaghan which Thatcher won by a single vote . Ushered in Thatcher for 3 nightmare terms.

And in the election Scotland returned twice as many Labour seats as Tory ones and still got Thatcher.[/QUOTE]

....then after 18 years we got shot and Labour delivered Devolution. I've posted many times, no party stays in power forever, that's actually not a bad thing despite anyone's own political allegiance. They all eventually stagnate and run out of ideas to make a meaningful improvement to people's lives.

[Berwickhibby]

Apart from the 11 SNP MPs who crossed the chamber and voted with the Torys in a vote of no confidence against Callaghan which Thatcher won by a single vote . Ushered in Thatcher for 3 nightmare terms.

And in the election Scotland returned twice as many Labour seats as Tory ones and still got Thatcher.[/QUOTE]

:agree: I helped Ron Brown's campaign by delivering leaflets ... my point is still valid that 11 SNP MPs assisted Thatcher with the vote of no confidence against the then Labour Prime Minister

[Northernhibee]

What worries me is that Thatcher had a vision and a determination - repugnant as it was - that it was her way or the highway and woe betide anyone who got in her way to achieve that.

Johnson goes with whatever way the last gust of wind has blown and the money for things like flats and wallpaper make it possible that he’s left himself open to being bought.

When you look at the list of Tory donors, that’s terrifying.

Hancock, Patel and others would have been sacked under Thatcher. They can act with impunity under Johnson.

[Santa Cruz]

What worries me is that Thatcher had a vision and a determination - repugnant as it was - that it was her way or the highway and woe betide anyone who got in her way to achieve that.

Johnson goes with whatever way the last gust of wind has blown and the money for things like flats and wallpaper make it possible that he’s left himself open to being bought.

When you look at the list of Tory donors, that’s terrifying.

Hancock, Patel and others would have been sacked under Thatcher. They can act with impunity under Johnson.

Totally. Comes back to the OP's q. You've summed it up, Thatcher was a Leader, Johnson a Loser both no obvious likeable/caring qualities between them. I'm going to predict the Loser will be gone by April at the latest. Naebody wants that job right now till we're through the Winter.

[Just Alf]

What worries me is that Thatcher had a vision and a determination - repugnant as it was - that it was her way or the highway and woe betide anyone who got in her way to achieve that.

Johnson goes with whatever way the last gust of wind has blown and the money for things like flats and wallpaper make it possible that he’s left himself open to being bought.

When you look at the list of Tory donors, that’s terrifying.

Hancock, Patel and others would have been sacked under Thatcher. They can act with impunity under Johnson.Regardless of the politics of it all, that's it in a nutshell with regards to a comparison between the two.

[Ozyhibby]

And in the election Scotland returned twice as many Labour seats as Tory ones and still got Thatcher.

....then after 18 years we got shot and Labour delivered Devolution. I've posted many times, no party stays in power forever, that's actually not a bad thing despite anyone's own political allegiance. They all eventually stagnate and run out of ideas to make a meaningful improvement to people's lives.[/QUOTE]

All we have to do is wait then and we’ll get what we vote for? How many times has England had to wait to get what they vote for?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kato]

What worries me is that Thatcher had a vision and a determination - repugnant as it was - that it was her way or the highway and woe betide anyone who got in her way to achieve that.

Johnson goes with whatever way the last gust of wind has blown and the money for things like flats and wallpaper make it possible that he’s left himself open to being bought.

When you look at the list of Tory donors, that’s terrifying.

Hancock, Patel and others would have been sacked under Thatcher. They can act with impunity under Johnson.That's it in a nutshell. Thatcher opened the door and created the route to the loot, we are left with the looters.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[Bristolhibby]

Totally get that, that's why I inserted (subconsciously). Was just wondering if this very brutal decimation of a crucial industry in small communities inadvertently was a good thing from an environmental point of view and a policy the Greens would have pursued had Thatcher never existed. Like I say, don't have a great deal of knowledge on the subject.

In the mainstream 80s economic thought of Tories, Green policies cost money and stifle innovation through regulation. Therefore they were not at the forefront of any policy setting.

Just look at Trump and Coal.

Where as the country that migrated away from fossil fuels quickest will have a significant long term competitive advantage. Oh and save the planet we all live on.

J

[Ozyhibby]

In the mainstream 80s economic thought of Tories, Green policies cost money and stifle innovation through regulation. Therefore they were not at the forefront of any policy setting.

Just look at Trump and Coal.

Where as the country that migrated away from fossil fuels quickest will have a significant long term competitive advantage. Oh and save the planet we all live on.

J

To be fair to America, it’s going greener than a lot of countries in Europe who talk a good game but don’t deliver. Trump also talks a good game and didn’t deliver. While he may have talked about protecting coal, he didn’t deliver any actual legislation during his term. In fact he achieved very little at all. America was able to rejoin Paris accord very easily because it hadn’t really changed direction on the ground. The states kept working towards the goals even when Trump was trashing it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kato]

To be fair to America, it’s going greener than a lot of countries in Europe who talk a good game but don’t deliver. Trump also talks a good game and didn’t deliver. While he may have talked about protecting coal, he didn’t deliver any actual legislation during his term. In fact he achieved very little at all. America was able to rejoin Paris accord very easily because it hadn’t really changed direction on the ground. The states kept working towards the goals even when Trump was trashing it.


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkTrump's impact on the environment probably boiled down to his own emission of hot air.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

To be fair to America, it’s going greener than a lot of countries in Europe who talk a good game but don’t deliver. Trump also talks a good game and didn’t deliver. While he may have talked about protecting coal, he didn’t deliver any actual legislation during his term. In fact he achieved very little at all. America was able to rejoin Paris accord very easily because it hadn’t really changed direction on the ground. The states kept working towards the goals even when Trump was trashing it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's true.

IMO, capitalism is the key to managing climate change. When big business realises the market potential, it will.embrace it. That's what is happening in the States.

[Keith_M]

I'm not entirely clear what the question here is. Is it who was/is the more effective politician/PM? If so then it's Thatcher all day long.

On one hand she's the devil incarnate who smashed the unions and ravaged the UK's mining communities. On the other she's the saviour who dragged the UK out of the dark ages. Either way she was an extraordinary leader. To be the first female PM and assert that level of control over the UK political landscape for so long marked her out as a unique woman. As others have said, whatever you thought of her politics she was utterly dedicated to her role, which she played with often ruthless, unwavering conviction (pretty much the complete opposite of Johnson).


Except for the woman part, didn't you just describe every evil dictator in the history of the human race?


I'm not sure what's admirable about the fact it was a woman.

Evil is evil regardless of the content of the knickers.

[Kato]

Didn’t we all want cheap? Fuel poverty was a lot worse in those days than it is now?


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkWe maybe got cheap in monetary price but the expense came in the social fall-out, communities destroyed and years of future generations growing up with no real jobs.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[Kato]

The problem most folk have with Thatcher is that she couldn’t care less about collateral human damage when it came to achieving her objectives. She’s damaged people, places and communities to the extent that they haven’t recovered to this day.



The only thing I'd argue there is that, given what we know about The Ridley Plan, the devastation dealt out to working class communities wasnt as collateral, their destruction was part and maybe the main part of the plan. The fact that the coal industry was hit so hard first is by the by, if another Union or working class institution had held the power the NUM had they would have been first.

Cheap coal want the aim, it was a collateral outcome when going about the destruction of those communities.



Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[wookie70]

That's true.

IMO, capitalism is the key to managing climate change. When big business realises the market potential, it will.embrace it. That's what is happening in the States.

Capitalism will ultimately kill the earth anyway as growth is the biggest enemy of the environment. The Green Deal put forward by Corbyn and the greens is the way forward. Create profit in making the world better not in destroying it

[JeMeSouviens]

The only thing I'd argue there is that, given what we know about The Ridley Plan, the devastation dealt out to working class communities wasnt as collateral, their destruction was part and maybe the main part of the plan. The fact that the coal industry was hit so hard first is by the by, if another Union or working class institution had held the power the NUM had they would have been first.

Cheap coal want the aim, it was a collateral outcome when going about the destruction of those communities.



Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

The miners weren't first. She'd already butchered the steel industry via her hatchet man, Ian McGregor, and sold off the few profitable bits. She was slightly wary of taking on the miners because of what they did to Heath's government in the 70s but she and Nigel Lawson had hatched a plan of stockpiling loads of cheap coal from eastern europe so that McGregor, who was moved on to the coal board, could start shutting down pits with no threat to the electricity supply. Scargill and co's hubris walked right into her trap.

[ronaldo7]

Thatcher was calculating, cunning, and coniving. Johnsons not bright enough to be in her league. She was waiting in the wings, whilst the labour party floundered with the liberals, and watched two of their Mps defect. They then got Cunningham to introduce his 40% rule. It was game over for them after that. 34 labour Mps did more to bring down their own government, than anyone else. They're still at it all over Scotland, hand in hand with the Tories. Thatchers greatest achievement was turning labour a slight hint of blue

[Kato]

The miners weren't first. She'd already butchered the steel industry via her hatchet man, Ian McGregor, and sold off the few profitable bits. She was slightly wary of taking on the miners because of what they did to Heath's government in the 70s but she and Nigel Lawson had hatched a plan of stockpiling loads of cheap coal from eastern europe so that McGregor, who was moved on to the coal board, could start shutting down pits with no threat to the electricity supply. Scargill and co's hubris walked right into her trap.Thanks for putting me right on the chronology. Still the same game.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[Hibernia&Alba]

Thatcher was a far more able politician than Johnson, who, like it or not (and I don't) had principles she wasn't prepared to compromise upon. Sadly, I think her principles were abominable: everything was reduced to financial exchange - the market - thus human interaction and humane consideration was reduced to its lowest common denominator. The money obsessed and materialistic society we have today is due to her, to a great extent.

I was only a wee boy at the time, so I didn't know it was unusual for most people to be out of work, living amongst rising crime and broken estates. Having no context by which to judge life, I thought it had always been that way. The majority in my class at school were on free school meals because their parents had lost their jobs in recent years; again I didn't know things had ever been different. Looking back, life was hard and depressing as organised labour was crushed and the country was told it was every man or woman for themselves. It was brutal, particularly for those least able to cope with the rapid change, such as the elderly and the disabled. You were told to sink or swim, and, if you sank, it was your own fault - you were a failure who couldn't cope with market forces.

There is also the threat to democracy created by enormous disparities of wealth, but that was never mentioned.

An horrendous woman, driven by an horrendous ideology.

[JeMeSouviens]

Thatcher was a far more able politician than Johnson, who, like it or not (and I don't) had principles she wasn't prepared to compromise upon. Sadly, I think her principles were abominable: everything was reduced to financial exchange - the market - thus human interaction and humane consideration was reduced to its lowest common denominator. The money obsessed and materialistic society we have today is due to her, to a great extent.

I was only a wee boy at the time, so I didn't know it was unusual for most people to be out of work, living amongst rising crime and broken estates. Having no context by which to judge life, I thought it had always been that way. The majority in my class at school were on free school meals because their parents had lost their jobs in recent years; again I didn't know things had ever been different. Looking back, life was hard and depressing as organised labour was crushed and the country was told it was every man or woman for themselves. It was brutal, particularly for those least able to cope with the rapid change, such as the elderly and the disabled. You were told to sink and swim, and, if you sank, it was your own fault - you were a failure who couldn't cope with market forces.

There is also the threat to democracy created by enormous disparities of wealth, but that was never mentioned.

An horrendous woman, driven by an horrendous ideology.

:agree:

Sums up the Tory mentality - they are almost all from backgrounds of decent education, supportive parents, usually a financial cushion. But they "deserve" their comfortable lives because "they've worked hard for it" and anybody struggling is feckless, workshy etc. :rolleyes:

[Hibernia&Alba]

:agree:

Sums up the Tory mentality - they are almost all from backgrounds of decent education, supportive parents, usually a financial cushion. But they "deserve" their comfortable lives because "they've worked hard for it" and anybody struggling is feckless, workshy etc. :rolleyes:

Absolutely. It's much easier to succeed when you have every advantage from birth, yet since Thatcher the Tories have returned to their theory that poverty is due to the moral failure of the individual. It's an incredibly simplistic and completely inadequate way of explaining life chances. In fact it's a self-serving ideology which enables the most materially wealthy to feel comfortable in their advantages: as you say, they say they 'deserve it'. An intergenerational accumulation of wealth and power undermines democracy itself and not only social mobility, which is terrible in itself.

[Keith_M]

:agree: I helped Ron Brown's campaign by delivering leaflets ... my point is still valid that 11 SNP MPs assisted Thatcher with the vote of no confidence against the then Labour Prime Minister


Sorry, but that's just a cliche trotted out every so often for people to attack the SNP.

Other parties were entitled to support a vote of no confidence. The fact that the UK Electorate then decided to vote in the Tories was not down to the SNP, but down to the Electorate.

I would like to add to that, in that election, the people of Scotland largely voted for Labour.

Thatcher was then re-elected due to two issues: A whipped up UK patriotism (sound familiar?) from the Falklands War and the lurch to the far left in the Labour Party (Michael Foot, FFS!).

[Ozyhibby]

Sorry, but that's just a cliche trotted out every so often for people to attack the SNP.

Other parties were entitled to support a vote of no confidence. The fact that the UK Electorate then decided to vote in the Tories was not down to the SNP, but down to the Electorate.

I would like to add to that, in that election, the people of Scotland largely voted for Labour.

Thatcher was then re-elected due to two issues: A whipped up UK patriotism (sound familiar?) from the Falklands War and the lurch to the far left in the Labour Party (Michael Foot, FFS!).

What matters is now and it’s Scottish unionists who are backing the Tories and Boris Johnson.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Berwickhibby]

Sorry, but that's just a cliche trotted out every so often for people to attack the SNP.

Other parties were entitled to support a vote of no confidence. The fact that the UK Electorate then decided to vote in the Tories was not down to the SNP, but down to the Electorate.

I would like to add to that, in that election, the people of Scotland largely voted for Labour.

Thatcher was then re-elected due to two issues: A whipped up UK patriotism (sound familiar?) from the Falklands War and the lurch to the far left in the Labour Party (Michael Foot, FFS!).

Scottish electorate agreed by only returning 2 of the 11 SNP MPs at the next election… my original point still stands that some Scots did want the Tories in 79 … namely 11 SNP MPs

[Peevemor]

Scottish electorate agreed by only returning 2 of the 11 SNP MPs at the next election… my original point still stands that some Scots did want the Tories in 79 … namely 11 SNP MPsSo by that logic, the current SNP representation at Westminster want who? Labour?

[Berwickhibby]

So by that logic, the current SNP representation at Westminster want who? Labour?

It’s got nothing to do with today my response was to comment earlier in the post that no Scots wanted the Torys in 79

[Just Alf]

It’s got nothing to do with today my response was to comment earlier in the post that no Scots wanted the Torys in 79I get that 100%, and ...on this thread...i agree....

Part of the problem now though is despite the years passing and the change in the political landscape (labour voters now voting Tory etc) people still bring it up in other threads to bash the SNP.

[wookie70]

Scottish electorate agreed by only returning 2 of the 11 SNP MPs at the next election… my original point still stands that some Scots did want the Tories in 79 … namely 11 SNP MPs

I don't get that logic. You force a vote of no confidence because, guess what, you have no confidence in who is leading the country or how the government is performing. That can lead to a bigger majority for the incumbents, so easier to govern, a change of leadership of the incumbents and they win again or your own Party getting more influence by perhaps having enough votes to combine and form a government. I can also lead to a psycho witch getting into power but that is only one of a number of outcomes. Political Parties tend to vote in their own interests not the interests of other parties.

[Berwickhibby]

I don't get that logic. You force a vote of no confidence because, guess what, you have no confidence in who is leading the country or how the government is performing. That can lead to a bigger majority for the incumbents, so easier to govern, a change of leadership of the incumbents and they win again or your own Party getting more influence by perhaps having enough votes to combine and form a government. I can also lead to a psycho witch getting into power but that is only one of a number of outcomes. Political Parties tend to vote in their own interests not the interests of other parties.

To this day I will never understand why the SNP backed the Tories in 79, I do recall the backlash and the Tartan Tories terms, I also remember how **** the 80s were under her Government.

[Peevemor]

To this day I will never understand why the SNP backed the Tories in 79, I do recall the backlash and the Tartan Tories terms, I also remember how **** the 80s were under her Government.The SNP had already tabled their own motion of no confidence. This was set aside when the Tories subsequently submitted their's. Labour shafter the SNP and the Scottish public by imposing the 40% minimum requirement for the devolution referendum. Callaghan and his cronies were then very scathing of the SNP in parliament.

The SNP wanting rid of Labour didn't mean that they wanted the Tories.

And as I've said before, Labour only had 7 months of their mandate left and their government was collapsing.

Thatcher was going to happen regardless and I find the Labour currently teaming up with the Tories against the SNP far worse than anything the SNP did in 1979 - definitely in terms of direct consequence.

[Berwickhibby]

The SNP had already tabled their own motion of no confidence. This was set aside when the Tories subsequently submitted their's. Labour shafter the SNP and the Scottish public by imposing the 40% minimum requirement for the devolution referendum. Callaghan and his cronies were then very scathing of the SNP in parliament.

The SNP wanting rid of Labour didn't mean that they wanted the Tories.

And as I've said before, Labour only had 7 months of their mandate left and their government was collapsing.

Thatcher was going to happen regardless and I find the Labour currently teaming up with the Tories against the SNP far worse than anything the SNP did in 1979 - definitely in terms of direct consequence.

Boring …so let’s rewrite history the SNP did not back the Tories in their vote of no confidence in 79 and did not vote against the Labour Government. Also Wookie 70 did not state that Scotland got the Government it did not ask for or want.

[Peevemor]

Boring …so let’s rewrite history the SNP did not back the Tories in their vote of no confidence in 79 and did not vote against the Labour Government. Also Wookie 70 did not state that Scotland got the Government it did not ask for or want.I can't believe how blinkered you're being.

How could the SNP back the Tories in a motion that they submitted before the Tories did.

If I wanted England to lose last night, does that make me German or even a fan of Germany?

[Berwickhibby]

I can't believe how blinkered you're being.

How could the SNP back the Tories in a motion that they submitted before the Tories did.

If I wanted England to lose last night, does that make me German or even a fan of Germany?

The unbelievable lengths to protect any suggestion that the SNP could do anything wrong is staggering… I can think of lots of the top of my head what Labour have done wrong.. but their socialist ethos I believe in, especially pre Blair 3rd term.

[Peevemor]

The unbelievable lengths to protect any suggestion that the SNP could do anything wrong is staggering… I can think of lots of the top of my head what Labour have done wrong.. but their socialist ethos I believe in, especially pre Blair 3rd term.

Look at the facts.

It's interesting that you believe (present tense) in Labour's "socialist ethos" 16 years ago!

[Ozyhibby]

The unbelievable lengths to protect any suggestion that the SNP could do anything wrong is staggering… I can think of lots of the top of my head what Labour have done wrong.. but their socialist ethos I believe in, especially pre Blair 3rd term.

I honestly don’t care what happened 40 odd years ago. It’s unionists who are backing the Tories now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kato]

The unbelievable lengths to protect any suggestion that the SNP could do anything wrong is staggering… I can think of lots of the top of my head what Labour have done wrong.. but their socialist ethos I believe in, especially pre Blair 3rd term.In didnt see any unbelievable lengths. An attempt at perspective more like. Boil it down to as few words as possible if you want but surely you see historical perspective is important and that both Labour and the SNP are both very different entities to what they were 40 years ago?

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[wookie70]

Boring …so let’s rewrite history the SNP did not back the Tories in their vote of no confidence in 79 and did not vote against the Labour Government. Also Wookie 70 did not state that Scotland got the Government it did not ask for or want.

I did earlier in the thread, we voted 2 to 1 in favour of Labour and got Thatcher. The SNP were wrong to vote with the Tories but I think it is a stretch to say they did that because they wanted a Tory Govt. In some ways it
was a good thing as it moved the SNP to the left and made them align more with the majority of Scottish People.

I was reading more about the 1979 vote and there are some fascinating details that led to Thatcher winning the no confidence vote. Irish Republicans voting her way and a vote that would have saved the Govt not cast because of serious illness and Callaghan refusing to let the MP vote as they should be concentrating on their health. Can you imagine Thatcher bothering about someone dying if that vote was important to her.

[degenerated]

[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23] Labour and the Tories have practically merged in Scotland already.


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkBy practically do you mean actually? They certainly have at local authority level.

Sent from my CPH2009 using Tapatalk

[lapsedhibee]

I was reading more about the 1979 vote and there are some fascinating details that led to Thatcher winning the no confidence vote. Irish Republicans voting her way and a vote that would have saved the Govt not cast because of serious illness and Callaghan refusing to let the MP vote as they should be concentrating on their health. Can you imagine Thatcher bothering about someone dying if that vote was important to her.

Thatcher, yes, if it was a Tory. Johnson, no, whoever it was.

[wookie70]

Thatcher, yes, if it was a Tory. Johnson, no, whoever it was.
Neither for me.

[Berwickhibby]

Neither for me.

Definitely neither… Thatcher would have had him wheeled in on a gurney as long as he had a pulse

[lapsedhibee]

Definitely neither… Thatcher would have had him wheeled in on a gurney as long as he had a pulse

She might have, yes, but if that killed him she would notice. Johnson wouldn't even.

[ronaldo7]

The Bain principle is strong on a thread about Thatcher v Johnson

[Pretty Boy]

I've increasingly come to the conclusion that the Conservative Party will be responsible for it's own demise and that said demise will one day be traced back to Thatcher.

The general belief is that people move to the right as they get older. Largely that is because they have more to lose in terms of assets as they age. A policy like right to buy was hugely beneficial in getting people into home ownership for a generation, maybe 2. Beyond that though it has been catastrophic for that same purpose. We are conditioned to believe that high house prices that are getting higher = good economy. Little consideration is given to the fact that home ownership is in decline though and that is particularly true among the younger generations. Home ownership is becoming an increasingly exclusive club with more people owning multiple properties for the purposes of profit and investment rather than necessity. If people move to the right to conserve what they have, what happens when you have new generations in which a majority have little to conserve? As people realise they are going to be renting to an age which is almost double what their parents were, and far longer in some cases, they will begin to question the decline in quality and availability of social housing. Again we have been primed for decades to believe spending public money on affordable, good quality housing is a waste of our money. Let the free market and the private sector operate on the principle of supply and demand and make a profit out of the most basic human necessity. It's unsustainable.

We are in the midst of an industrial revolution along with a cultural revolution. The world is changing and the actions of the likes of Johnson are a last throw at the dice to protect their status quo. The Tories have long ceased to directly appeal to what might have been called the aspirational working class, they may still draw support from what is left of that socio-economic group of course, but they have gone down a noticeably different path. Rampant nationalism and jingoism, a nostalgic yearning for a past that never really existed and a drive towards splendid isolation in Europe. It's desperation politics and it's working for now. I question the sustainability of it though. As new industries, new technologies, new beliefs and new realisations emerge the old certainties will lose their appeal.

[Ozyhibby]

I've increasingly come to the conclusion that the Conservative Party will be responsible for it's own demise and that said demise will one day be traced back to Thatcher.

The general belief is that people move to the right as they get older. Largely that is because they have more to lose in terms of assets as they age. A policy like right to buy was hugely beneficial in getting people into home ownership for a generation, maybe 2. Beyond that though it has been catastrophic for that same purpose. We are conditioned to believe that high house prices that are getting higher = good economy. Little consideration is given to the fact that home ownership is in decline though and that is particularly true among the younger generations. Home ownership is becoming an increasingly exclusive club with more people owning multiple properties for the purposes of profit and investment rather than necessity. If people move to the right to conserve what they have, what happens when you have new generations in which a majority have little to conserve? As people realise they are going to be renting to an age which is almost double what their parents were, and far longer in some cases, they will begin to question the decline in quality and availability of social housing. Again we have been primed for decades to believe spending public money on affordable, good quality housing is a waste of our money. Let the free market and the private sector operate on the principle of supply and demand and make a profit out of the most basic human necessity. It's unsustainable.

We are in the midst of an industrial revolution along with a cultural revolution. The world is changing and the actions of the likes of Johnson are a last throw at the dice to protect their status quo. The Tories have long ceased to directly appeal to what might have been called the aspirational working class, they may still draw support from what is left of that socio-economic group of course, but they have gone down a noticeably different path. Rampant nationalism and jingoism, a nostalgic yearning for a past that never really existed and a drive towards splendid isolation in Europe. It's desperation politics and it's working for now. I question the sustainability of it though. As new industries, new technologies, new beliefs and new realisations emerge the old certainties will lose their appeal.

I agree with most of what you say. The buying property for investment thing can only really work for a couple of generations. I think we are at the end of the 2nd generation now. How it all unravels though, is very difficult to know. Will it be an enormous crash, a political revolution or something much worse?
Where I disagree is in blaming the free market? There is no free market in housing. There is a market but there are many constrictions put on by govt which restricts supply massively. These contribute massively to the rise in prices.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Colr]

I agree with most of what you say. The buying property for investment thing can only really work for a couple of generations. I think we are at the end of the 2nd generation now. How it all unravels though, is very difficult to know. Will it be an enormous crash, a political revolution or something much worse?
Where I disagree is in blaming the free market? There is no free market in housing. There is a market but there are many constrictions put on by govt which restricts supply massively. These contribute massively to the rise in prices.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Through Help to Buy (in England) the government is now heavily invested in the housing market and will likely aim to keep prices high or rising.

Not much motivation to increase supply, I’m sorry to say.

[H18S NX]

Thatcher was a ****,Boris is not that useful.

[Since90+2]

Through Help to Buy (in England) the government is now heavily invested in the housing market and will likely aim to keep prices high or rising.

Not much motivation to increase supply, I’m sorry to say.

The housing market won't be allowed to crash under any circumstances in the UK. If it does then everyone, not just homeowners, should be very worried as it's underpinning the UK economy.

[Ozyhibby]

The housing market won't be allowed to crash under any circumstances in the UK. If it does then everyone, not just homeowners, should be very worried as it's underpinning the UK economy.

Sometimes there is just nothing that can be done to prevent things from happening.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[heretoday]

Thatcher worked hard to get where she was and continued to work hard for better or worse once she'd got there.

Johnson has always got by with the minimum of work, relies on others to do the heavy lifting and charms or lies himself into the top jobs.

I'm sure Boris is amusing company on a night out - perish the thought - but I know which one I'd have beside me in a crisis.

[Ozyhibby]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210702/6fca9bcc6cbfbe791addd11379f22e14.jpg

No idea what she thinks about Thatcher though?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Peevemor]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210702/6fca9bcc6cbfbe791addd11379f22e14.jpg

No idea what she thinks about Thatcher though?


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkI'm fairly certain there would have been enormous mutual respect.

[gbhibby]

Thatcher worked hard to get where she was and continued to work hard for better or worse once she'd got there.

Johnson has always got by with the minimum of work, relies on others to do the heavy lifting and charms or lies himself into the top jobs.

I'm sure Boris is amusing company on a night out - perish the thought - but I know which one I'd have beside me in a crisis.
Boris is our version of Trump, he tends to speak before he engages his brain. At PMQs he has trouble reading his briefing and is a very poor communicator,much like the people he has surrounded himself with in cabinet Grant Shapps etc. He does not listen to people who are on a different level to him.

Not a fan of Maggie but she was an excellent communicator and did surround herself with very able politicians in her cabinet. As was said at the time every cabinet needs a good Willie (Whitelaw). Her reaction to COVID would have been to think of the economy before people and it seems according to Dominic Cummings Boris was the same.

[Block]

The housing market won't be allowed to crash under any circumstances in the UK. If it does then everyone, not just homeowners, should be very worried as it's underpinning the UK economy.

Scotland is probably the most underpopulated part of the uk. We could build over huge swathes of it and hardly notice the difference. Take in hundreds of thousands of migrants and build good quality bungalow type housing for them and our own hundreds of thousands of Scottish poorest no bother. Would crash the housing market in a heartbeat.

I'm sure our Snp would do the right thing and impoverish the richest in society to improve not only our poorest in society but those who want to come here from around the world.

I'm certain to get lots of approval and agreeable posts from the vast majority on here, surely?

:aok:

[lapsedhibee]

Scotland is probably the most underpopulated part of the uk. We could build over huge swathes of it and hardly notice the difference. Take in hundreds of thousands of migrants and build good quality bungalow type housing for them and our own hundreds of thousands of Scottish poorest no bother. Would crash the housing market in a heartbeat.

I'm sure our Snp would do the right thing and impoverish the richest in society to improve not only our poorest in society but those who want to come here from around the world.

I'm certain to get lots of approval and agreeable posts from the vast majority on here, surely?

:aok:

Don't think you'll get too many disgareeing with you that house prices, shortages, inequality, etc, are in the end politically determined.

[Ozyhibby]

Scotland is probably the most underpopulated part of the uk. We could build over huge swathes of it and hardly notice the difference. Take in hundreds of thousands of migrants and build good quality bungalow type housing for them and our own hundreds of thousands of Scottish poorest no bother. Would crash the housing market in a heartbeat.

I'm sure our Snp would do the right thing and impoverish the richest in society to improve not only our poorest in society but those who want to come here from around the world.

I'm certain to get lots of approval and agreeable posts from the vast majority on here, surely?

:aok:

The Scottish public sector is building more houses than any other part of the UK. Within the current system we live in the Scottish govt is trying it’s best to build as many high quality homes as is possible.
They could do a lot more though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jones28]

Scotland is probably the most underpopulated part of the uk. We could build over huge swathes of it and hardly notice the difference. Take in hundreds of thousands of migrants and build good quality bungalow type housing for them and our own hundreds of thousands of Scottish poorest no bother. Would crash the housing market in a heartbeat.

I'm sure our Snp would do the right thing and impoverish the richest in society to improve not only our poorest in society but those who want to come here from around the world.

I'm certain to get lots of approval and agreeable posts from the vast majority on here, surely?

:aok:

Totally agree that we should be building more houses and taking in more migrants.

But it shouldn't leave thousands of people with negative equity.

[ronaldo7]

This is the type of thing that the UK governments did to places like Glasgow. They put policies in place to keep people poor, and dying early.

THE SCOTTISH Office implemented social engineering policies that it knew to be damaging to the long-term health of Glaswegians, a new report on the so-called 'Glasgow effect' will reveal.

The report – to be launched next week by the Glasgow Centre for Population Health, University of the West of Scotland, NHS Scotland and University College of London – claims to offer evidenced reasons for so-called 'Glasgow effect' - the phenomenon which sees more people die prematurely in Glasgow than can be accounted for by poverty alone, in comparison to the rest of the UK
Researchers, who spent years working on the project and examined 40 different theories, claim that radical urban planning in the 1960s and 70s, aimed at promoting economic growth, was a key factor which made Glaswegians vulnerable to the devastating effects of deprivation and bad housing.

The mortality rate is 15 percent higher in Glasgow across all social classes and ages, while premature mortality (dying under 65) is 30 percent higher, and much higher among the poorest in the city. The so-called 'Glasgow effect' means more people die from the cancer, heart disease, strokes as well as drugs, alcohol and suicide than do in other comparable cities.

The report has been endorsed by a raft of leading public health professionals including Professor Sir Harry Burns, Professor of Global Public Health, University of Strathclyde and formerly chief medical officer for Scotland; Phil Hanlon, Honorary Senior Research Fellow of University of Glasgow; and Professor Danny Dorling, of University of Oxford.

The report notes that Scottish Office documents – released under the 30 year rule – show that the creation of new towns, populated by Glasgow's skilled workforce and young families, which attracted investment, led to a situation where the city was left with "the old, the very poor and the almost unemployable". Another document admits to "skimming off the cream" of Glasgow to be rehoused in new towns such as Bishopbriggs, East Kilbride and Houston.
In one policy document from 1971 entitled 'The Glasgow Crisis' it was noted that the city was in a socially and economically "dangerous" position as a result of the policy which amounted to "a very powerful case for drastic action to reverse present trends within the city."

However the policy continued to be rolled out regardless, a decision which fuelled the break-up of communities and a chronic lack of investment in housing or repairs in housing schemes such as Easterhouse, Drumchapel and Castlemilk.

As well as Westminster social engineering, the report finds that a range of other factors also made Glaswegians more vulnerable to the effects of poverty and deprivation when compared with data from Liverpool and Manchester, which in the earlier part of the 20th century had similar levels of mortality to Glasgow. The Scottish city started to fall behind considerably in later years.
Researchers found that the historic effect of overcrowding was an important factor and highlighted the strategies of local government, which prioritised the regeneration of the city centre over investment in the cities housing schemes as having a significant impact on the health of Glaswegians.

Data shows that Glasgow authorities spent far less on housing repairs, leaving people's homes poorly maintained and subject to damp.

David Walsh, of the Glasgow Centre for Population Health, said that their work proved that poor health had political causes and could not simply be attributed to individual lifestyle choices.

He added: "The principal reasons for poor health in Glasgow are poverty and deprivation, and this shouldn’t be forgotten. However, even given its very high levels of deprivation, Glasgow has much, much worse health than it should have, and much worse than in comparably deprived cities like Liverpool, Manchester and Belfast – cities that been through the same processes of de-industrialisation.

"Until now this has been an unexplained phenomenon: but this new research is based on assessment of a huge amount of evidence and is not speculation-based."

The Scottish Office documents were particularly revealing, he claimed. "The Scottish Office embarked on a series of policies that effectively wrote off the city - they designated it a ‘declining city’ and their plans focused on economic growth elsewhere," he added. "This was a policy that went on for decades despite an awareness that this was having a massively negative impact in socio-economic terms and therefore on health."
Co-author Chik Collins, of the University of the West of Scotland said that this made Glasgow more vulnerable to the policies introduced by the Conservative Government after 1979, leaving the city with weakened industry, loss of skilled labour and very large numbers of problematic council houses in peripheral estates and high rises.

He claimed Glasgow city and regional council responses further impacted on health. "It was a Scottish variant of trickle-down economics that focussed on retail and tourism, ultimately at the expense of other parts of the community which did not benefit and which did not get the help they needed from elsewhere," he added.

"Glasgow got a double-dose of neoliberalism – the UK Thatcherite version, and the more local version led by the Scottish Development Agency and the Council.

"The ‘excess mortality’ affects the best off as well as the worst off and so all socioeconomic groups in Glasgow have reason to feel some urgency about getting to the root of that problem."

Frank McAveety, leader of Glasgow City Council, broadly welcomed the report, which he said addressed an issue he was personally as well as professionally vested in - as his own father and uncles died in their fifties.
He said the report identified "the role that the Government played", adding: "It opens up the genuine issue of wealth distribution and the need for fair wages. We were the first council in Scotland to introduce a living wage for all staff in 2009 so we agree that this is an important way forward."

But he insisted that the hands of Glasgow authorities had been tied in the 1980s by the challenges caused by the impact of previous urban planning and local authority cuts imposed by the Thatcher government.

"There was a perception [from the UK Government] that Glasgow could not be successful and that very understandably has had a very big impact."

Professor Tom Devine, historian at Edinburgh University, said: "This new report is by far the most thorough and convincing attempt to date to resolve the conundrum. As a historian it is satisfying to read that many of the new explanations lie in its historical analysis of the recent past.

"However, the conclusions are chilling. They reveal that to a considerable extent the key causes were in the realms of public policy, housing, overspill initiatives and urban regeneration. In other words, higher death rates could have been avoided if different decisions had been made by politicians and planners at the time. Indeed, a stark warning for the future."

Satwat Rehman, Director of One Parent Families Scotland said: "Families headed by a single parent make up a quarter of families in Glasgow and sadly children in single parent families are twice as likely to live in poverty as those in two parent families. To reverse this we firmly believe in the importance of progressive policies to tackle poverty, exclusion and reduce inequality.”

A spokesman for the Scottish Government said there was a need to tackle the underlying causes of inequality and poverty. He added: "Scottish Government measures such as driving investment in affordable housing, increasing free school meals and continuing the commitments like free prescriptions, concessionary travel and free personal care, are the right approach to take. This is coupled with decisive action to address alcohol consumption, reduce smoking rates, encourage active living, healthy eating, and investment to improve mental health services."

The Scotland Office declined to comment.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14493634.revealed-glasgow-effect-mortality-rate-blamed-westminster-social-engineering/?ref=twtrec