|
|
Topic Originator: Captain Desmond Fancey
Date: Fri 3 May 10:34
The country changed very much for the better when this amazing lady was elected into office.
Never again can we let the disease of socialism that she fought so hard to eradicate take over, like it would under a Corbyn government.
Rest in Peace Mrs Thatcher. If only you were in charge now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sadindiefreak
Date: Fri 3 May 10:47
Jokes forum for this p@sh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: widtink
Date: Fri 3 May 11:51
Must try harder.
She stole my milk...
I'll never forgive that 😡
Admin
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Captain Desmond Fancey
Date: Fri 3 May 13:55
Another one of the great urban myths. She never "stole" anybody's milk.
Besides, milk at the school was absolutely bogging.
The good old days
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: widtink
Date: Fri 3 May 14:17
Oh sorry, are we only dealing in facts... I assumed by your op that you were having a laugh.
My mistake 🤣
Admin
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Captain Desmond Fancey
Date: Fri 3 May 14:19
Primary School milk was bogging. That's an indisputable fact ;)
Well, especially so if your teacher was one of those evil bar stewards who left it sitting until near, or after, lunchtime !
The good old days
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Fri 3 May 15:14
Bad things about Thatcher?
She adopted the free market economics of Milton Friedman, she created division the like of which we had never seen in our lifetime, she inspired the decline of Britain north of Watford, she squandered the wealth that was created from North Sea oil, she killed the union movement, she destroyed our manufacturing base, she created the evil that is privatisation, she abandoned exchange controls thus allowing the banks to rip you off every time you go abroad, she deregulated the City of London and inspired the greed is good mentality, she encouraged the rich to get richer and enabled the poor to get poorer, she actively delayed the ending of apartheid in South Africa, she created a political environment where taxes always have to be cut resulting inevitably in essential government services having to be reduced, she cosied up to Rupert Murdoch and opened the path for him to exert power way beyond his wildest imagination, she sold off the council houses creating a public housing shortage and forced succeeding generations into exploitation from private landlords, she provided a sugar-hit for some for a few years as house prices rose exponentially, but that didn't last and punters have been paying heavily for it ever since in increased household debt, and worst of all... she inspired the creation of New Labour meaning that for a generation any hope of a fairer more equitable society was effectively destroyed.
Good things about Thatcher?
She did the right thing in the Falklands... and she prompted my wife and I to emigrate to Australia.
:)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Fri 3 May 15:16
I take it all the utilities and industries in Australia aren't privately owned then?
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Captain Desmond Fancey
Date: Fri 3 May 15:17
Just as well we're not dealing in fact then because that should be filed under "fiction" every day of the week.
Except of course for the "good" parts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Fri 3 May 19:04
Evil witch whose death was rightly celebrated by millions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Fri 3 May 23:16
Okay Captain Smarty Pants, would you care to elaborate on where the fiction is in my list of bad things about Maggie?
Let's, just for a change, see some substance from you rather than the usual empty "schlock" statements that you have no doubt pinched from some right-wing Westminster blog.
:)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Fri 3 May 23:38
Oz do you think maybe the union movement did quite a lot by itself to destroy the movement? I'm also going to go out on a limb here and say rather than government services being cut since Margaret Thatcher was pm that since the 1970s the government provide or legislate for more services than ever.
Nope it was Neil Kinnock and John Smith that brought about Blair's New Labour when they abolished the block vote for one member one vote. The membership did the rest.
As for delaying the abolishment of apartheid, we'll she wasn't alone as prime ministers who didn't do enough in that regard. In 1964 Labour PM Harold Wilsons Labour government declined to press ahead with trade sanctions against South Africa despite giving indications of doing so prior to the election.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
Post Edited (Fri 03 May 23:41)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sadindiefreak
Date: Fri 3 May 23:56
The Falklands shouldn't be counted as a plus for her either
She knew a full month before the invasion that it was likely to happen.
Argentina had been in talks with the UK about the sovereignty of the islands and had said if the talks failed they would invade.
She was miles behind in the opinion poles and on 28th Feb reports in the press said Argentina were gearing up to invade.
She did nothing either because she didn't believe them or some have suggested to actually go to war to boost her popularity.
Either way her inaction, when she could have boosted troop numbers there, resulted in the deaths of 255 servicemen and 3 civilians.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sat 4 May 00:16
No it was the actions of the facist military junta led by General Galtieri that led to those deaths.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Rastapari
Date: Sat 4 May 07:06
Things she did right?
Die .
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sadindiefreak
Date: Sat 4 May 07:10
Quote:
The One Who Knocks, Sat 4 May 00:16
No it was the actions of the facist military junta led by General Galtieri that led to those deaths.
Yes it was.
But they could have been avoided if she had acted on information she had fully one month before the invasion.
She chose not to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Sat 4 May 10:09
Did she not against advice award Sir Jimmy Savile his title?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Sat 4 May 12:55
Agree with SIF on the Falklands...that was nothing but a re-election bid.
"The evil that is privitisation"...Where in any prosperous,growing,civilised society has private ownership never worked?Nations are built on individuals creating wealth.
Post Edited (Sat 04 May 13:12)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sun 5 May 11:48
Capitalists don't "create wealth" at all - they steal it from those who do. That's why their holy grail is "unearned income." That says everything you need to know.
"Unearned income" is a misnomer of course; it most certainly is earned, just not by the person accumulating it, it is earned by the poor sap who does the actual work for a fraction of its true value.
It's also worth noting that many of the privatised industries in the UK are owned or part-owned by their European nationally-owned counterparts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sun 5 May 11:58
What do you mean by unearned income?
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sun 5 May 12:06
"Unearned income" is a standard accounting term with a formal legal definition.
I really hope that this level of clarification won't be necessary at all stages of this conversation? I'm not doing much today but I do have to be back at work tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Sun 5 May 12:21
What i actually said Wotsit was "Nations are built on individuals creating wealth"..you know starting businesses etc.That is undeniable.
As for greed,well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sun 5 May 12:31
Businesses and nations are built on the exploitation of the work of others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Sun 5 May 12:38
I would agree,only if they are unpaid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sun 5 May 12:57
So if they are wildly underpaid that's ok?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Sun 5 May 12:59
Define wildy
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sun 5 May 13:02
OK, let's remove the word "wildly" since it's lacking precision.
What if they are underpaid?
That's much more easy to define: paid less than the value added by their work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Sun 5 May 13:05
That's not an easy term to define either.
Some adds lots of value others don't.We all know folks who get paid the same without making the same contribution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sun 5 May 13:09
It really isn't hard to define as a concept.
It's difficult to tally everything up in real-life, but that's not what we are doing here: we are discussing an an abstract notion - whether it is morally right to pay somebody less than the true value of their labour.
What do you think?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sun 5 May 13:17
I still don't know what you mean by unearned income. I apolgise for not being as educated as you wotsit but I do need it clarified.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sun 5 May 13:23
I honestly don't want to sound like one of those "do your own research" conspiracy nuts The One Who Knocks, but I'm using the standard HMRC definition which is easily googlable and, since this is a tangled enough topic as it is, I'd rather not get drawn into tangential conversations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Sun 5 May 13:39
If you are intentionally paying someone way less than they are worth then yes that would be wrong,but equally complicit would be the employee for letting that continue.
He/she has still has a choice.Negotiate or leave.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sun 5 May 14:01
Richie, you have taken what we spent a while honing into a well-defined concept and turned it into a wooly monstrosity!
Is it morally right to pay somebody less than the true value of their labour?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Sun 5 May 14:07
Perhaps another question would be ..who defines what the true value of labour is?That would be a better starting point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Sun 5 May 14:09
''He/she has still has a choice.Negotiate or leave.''
Getting back on topic, Thatcher did a lot to reduce the power of the unions and their ability to negotiate on behalf of employees.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sun 5 May 14:11
who defines what the true value of labour is?That would be a better starting point.
Why would it? We haven't decided whether there is any need to do that yet, have we?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Sun 5 May 14:16
Surely if you want to decide whether something is moral or not,you would have to determine who is the arbiter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sun 5 May 14:19
We don't need an arbiter if it's ok to do it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Sun 5 May 14:26
If it's a moral question we do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sun 5 May 14:31
We are discussing our personal views. That's why I asked you what you think at 13:09.
Is is ok to pay someone less than the value of their labour, in your opinion?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Sun 5 May 14:50
..and as i said you would have to define the value to answer that question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sun 5 May 14:57
No, you wouldn't have to define that at all.
It is a notional concept, the quantities and logistics are irrelevant.
Do you think that it is wrong to pay a person less than the true value of their labour?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Sun 5 May 15:00
I think it's right to pay someone for their true production.
How you value that production should be on an individual basis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sun 5 May 15:07
The definition of unearned income from some .gov website :
"Unearned income is any income that an individual has which is not a pension and has not been earned by them as an employee, by carrying out a profession or by running their own business. Although this list is not exhaustive, unearned income includes: interest from bank and building society accounts. dividends on shares."
Have any of you filthy capitalist pigs got a savings account or an isa?
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sun 5 May 15:11
I think it's right to pay someone for their true production.
Great! We agree on that!
How you value that production should be on an individual basis.
OK, this one's tougher:
How would you feel about situations where people form corporations which seek to become the arbiters of value? Is it wrong to do that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Sun 5 May 15:19
Competency isn't that tough to quantify.It should be apparent rather quickly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sun 5 May 15:21
I don't understand the relevance, sorry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Sun 5 May 15:26
Most corporations seek to hire primarily on competency.It becomes apparent very quickly whether any individual does/doesn't meet the required standard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sun 5 May 15:44
How does an individual achieve the required standard?
From birth to entering the job market there is a degree of preparation involved, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Sun 5 May 15:47
Absolutely.There will always be jobs though that any individual doesn't have the required competency.It's the main reason i have never played for Real Madrid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sun 5 May 15:57
I agree, again.
I'm wondering whether access to the training necessary to acquire the skills is as always determined by meritocratic means, as it is when the skills are acquired with such simple tools as a bag of air.
Very few fields of human endeavour are like that, are they?
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
Post Edited (Sun 05 May 16:00)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Sun 5 May 17:20
Not always but a degree of competency will always win out in the end.
Nature always seems to find a way of access.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sun 5 May 18:38
Where's the evidence for that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Sun 5 May 19:15
What i meant is if you show a degree of competency in any area,finding your niche seems to happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sun 5 May 19:25
Again, I see no evidence for that happening.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Sun 5 May 19:31
Quote:
richie5401, Sun 5 May 19:15
What i meant is if you show a degree of competency in any area,finding your niche seems to happen.
That's just nonsense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Sun 5 May 19:37
Yeah if you show aptitude/talent for fixing things it's hard to find work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sun 5 May 19:39
What if you show an aptitude for medicine?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Sun 5 May 19:43
You are likely going to find a way to pursue it.Provided the desire is there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Sun 5 May 19:48
Probably discipline as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sun 5 May 19:54
But only for some, right? For some it is just a matter of having things handed on a plate?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Sun 5 May 19:58
"Handed on a plate"..you mean rich parents....the individual still has to put in the work.Unless your you bribe someone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sun 5 May 20:21
the individual still has to put in the work.
That is not always the case.
Unless your you bribe someone.
That's one particularly egregious way but not the only one. Did you read my link above? That's where I got the "handed on a plate" quote from.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Sun 5 May 20:27
I did but i felt it way over generalised.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sun 5 May 20:42
I thought you liked generalisations:
You are likely going to find a way to pursue it.Provided the desire is there.
What i meant is if you show a degree of competency in any area,finding your niche seems to happen.
Nature always seems to find a way of access.
Why the sudden change of heart?
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Sun 5 May 20:47
Those statements would apply to any background.
What the comic strip tried to portray is a black/white system.There are many from fortunate backgrounds who have destroyed their life.Many from poor who have risen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sun 5 May 23:02
Quote:
richie5401, Sun 5 May 20:47
Those statements would apply to any background.
What the comic strip tried to portray is a black/white system.There are many from fortunate backgrounds who have destroyed their life.Many from poor who have risen.
That's all a bit vague and wooly again Ritchie but you did make two concrete assertions:
There is a statistic for how many poor people rise, it's called social mobility and the level is plummeting: people are, in fact, increasingly less likely to 'rise' if they are poor.
As for the other one: do you disagree that top quality education, health care and nutrition from birth make it much easier time reach your potential?
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Sun 5 May 23:50
I think,again it depends very much on the individual.
You can put certain folks in good education,take care of their health and good food and they still won't flourish.Others will.
Individual stories rather than collective stats gives a much better picture.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Mario
Date: Mon 6 May 09:37
Working in the Scottish Office aged just 16 I was totally unaware of the old school tie stuff. As an ex Kings Roader, I had no role in this little play, green behind the gills, but as time went by...
Anyone new joining the staff and it wouldn’t be long before that cropped up, and it was hilarious witnessing the resentment of, say, a section manager finding his junior had played golf at the weekend at a club he would never get near being a member of, no dinner with the bank manager, etc
The fact though that the senior officer had got promoted on merit said something I suppose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Captain Desmond Fancey
Date: Wed 8 May 08:38
Calling for "substance" and calling me "Captain Smarty Pants" in the same post. Very good ;)
What a shame that a thread opened up to only pay respect to a woman who was, in my opinion (and that of many others), the greatest Prime Minister the country has ever had, has been hijacked by haters and pathetic left wingers.
As for the expat's question....
There isn't a single area of the UK - either North or South of Watford - which wasn't better off at the end of her tenure than it was in 1979. That is fact.
"Killing" the Union movement could also be seen as a positive. Besides she didn't "kill" it she just curtailed it. It was needing done as surely you're old enough to remember the dark days of the 70s when they wielded far too much power. Reigning them in was exactly the right thing to do.
As for the creation of "New Labour" this didn't really happen until after the tragic death of John Smith and several years after Thatcher had been stabbed in the back by her own party.
I could go on...and on....and on taking your other "facts" apart but I could literally be here all day.
The good old days
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Wed 8 May 14:45
<<There isn't a single area of the UK - either North or South of Watford - which wasn't better off at the end of her tenure than it was in 1979. That is fact.>>
Pffft. Oh, give it a rest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Captain Desmond Fancey
Date: Wed 8 May 18:36
"Pffft. Oh, give it a rest."
Economically that is a simple fact. Given what you said about me earlier on I'm a little surprised (only a little mind you) by the nature of your reply.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Wed 8 May 22:42
I actually agree with you to a point about the Unions but the fact is Capn Desmond, you were trolling for a reaction which is just kinda sad for someone of your age and supposed intellectual superiority.
Folk like yourself make me wonder if Germany is onto something with the mandatory Civilian service - I can't imagine being either so blissfully unaware of or willfully ignorant to the social problems that some face. Then again, you may well just draw some kind of hollow satisfaction in making such statements. Some do say that lack of empathy is the root of evil. The key is education but I see hee haw from those with the Blue rosettes on how to improve things there but that's unsurprising.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Thu 9 May 00:07
<<Economically that is a simple fact. Given what you said about me earlier on I'm a little surprised (only a little mind you) by the nature of your reply.>>
Oh my. You're a sensitive fellow, aren't you?
:)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Captain Desmond Fancey
Date: Thu 9 May 05:33
"but the fact is Capn Desmond, you were trolling for a reaction which is just kinda sad for someone of your age and supposed intellectual superiority. "
Well well, Jimmy playing the age card (again) and getting things completely wrong (again). As I've said elsewhere I wasn't trolling for a reaction from anybody as, at the end of the day, I couldn't really give two hoots about most peoples opinion - and certainly not the opinion of an ageist, left wing weasel like you.
And Oz, quite clearly you have nothing so why are you still bothering. If you want something to fill your time, away and have a read of Jeremy Clarkson's (I'm sure slightly tongue in cheek) article about expats. Made me chuckle.
Actually, Jimmy, maybe you can go have a wee read of it too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Thu 9 May 07:18
"Left Wing Weasel"? Oh dear, somebody is getting a wee bit rattled despite the facade. I'm actually more of a Centrist, but anyways. And playing the Victim card again? If you actually displayed a more grown up attitude and showed a wee bit more empathy then more people might actually listen to your arguments - ever think of that?
If you don't gain some sort of satisfaction from acting this way, then why do it at all? Absolutely pointless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Captain Desmond Fancey
Date: Thu 9 May 10:38
I can assure you I am anything but rattled. It's kind of cute that you think I am though.
And as for the "victim card" I'd love to know exactly how you think I'm playing that. Actually, scrap that because, as I've kind of tried to allude to earlier, I honestly don't give a monkey's chuff what you - leftist or centrist - think of me or the way I am apparently "acting".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Thu 9 May 12:05
You obviously do if you take the time to reply. Again, if you grew up a wee bit then you might actually get people willing to debate you seriously.
Cue once again "I don't care what anyone thinks!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Thu 9 May 12:29
In my experience it's not unusual for people with right-wing leanings not to care what anyone else thinks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Captain Desmond Fancey
Date: Thu 9 May 13:10
"You obviously do if you take the time to reply. Again, if you grew up a wee bit then you might actually get people willing to debate you seriously.
Cue once again "I don't care what anyone thinks!""
You're honestly like a fly round a jam jar. Get over yourself. I know you like to think that you somehow have me riled or even, hilariously, that you have the better of me but you really don't.
Have a look through the thread again and indeed other recent threads on here and I think you'll find that most of the abuse/name calling came from others ("Captain Smarty Pants" "Morons") etc.
Regardless, perhaps for the first time (imo of course) Eck has called it right here. I really don't care, and I certainly don't need to "grow up". Cheers all the same though.
Now, if only Admin could give us a block button...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Thu 9 May 13:16
It's good to know that you agree that people with right-wing leanings tend not to care what anyone else thinks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Thu 9 May 13:19
I'm more a fan of irony and you, Desmond, are irony personified.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Thu 9 May 15:47
Sorry that I have taken so long to reply to your comments, TOWK...
<<I take it all the utilities and industries in Australia aren't privately owned then?>>
We have been through an extensive series of privatisations since the 1990s that have seen major utilities, a few industries and strategic installations such as ports, airports and some major highways go into private hands. From the public's perspective, privatisation is largely perceived very negatively in Australia as most have led to significantly higher costs. Long term, perhaps more worrying is the strategic damage done in selling our largest coal export port (Newcastle) and our most northerly port (Darwin) - the host to a major regional naval base - to the Chinese. Time will tell if that was an act of utter lunacy...
<<Oz do you think maybe the union movement did quite a lot by itself to destroy the movement?>>
Yes, of course. But there is no doubt that legislative changes instituted by the Thatcher Government, such as those affecting secondary picketing, severely blunted the effectiveness of the union movement. Generally speaking, poor union leadership made things worse.
<<I'm also going to go out on a limb here and say rather than government services being cut since Margaret Thatcher was pm that since the 1970s the government provide or legislate for more services than ever.>>
I may be wrong here, but aren't many of those additional services supplied by private entities? My point was that the Reagan-Thatcher philosophy of "reducing the burden of government" by progressively reducing taxes inevitably reduced the government's ability to provide those services.
<<Nope it was Neil Kinnock and John Smith that brought about Blair's New Labour when they abolished the block vote for one member one vote. The membership did the rest.>>
I agree with that. The abolishment of the block vote was a major factor, but the impetus for change really came about a lot earlier when Michael Foot was royally mauled by Maggie in the early '80s. There were many within Labour then who saw the future just had to be more centrist - some ran away to form the SDP, while others remained and started drawing up plans to reduce the influence of the union movement. The UK might have escaped the worst excesses of Blair's New Labour had John Smith lived into old age.
<<As for delaying the abolishment of apartheid, well she wasn't alone as prime ministers who didn't do enough in that regard. In 1964 Labour PM Harold Wilsons Labour government declined to press ahead with trade sanctions against South Africa despite giving indications of doing so prior to the election.>>
There were a number of mitigating circumstances in regard to Harold Wilson's position on South Africa. Ian Smith's declaration of UDI in Rhodesia in 1965 rather put the spanner in the works for any such plans Wilson may have had. Continuing access to the naval base at Simonstown was an important consideration, given its strategic position between the South Atlantic and the Indian Ocean. But you must remember that this was pre-membership of the European Community and Britain's reliance on the Commonwealth - particularly South Africa - for exports and imports was a key economic consideration. Harold Wilson may have liked to have applied sanctions on South Africa, but there were some very powerful people in London who would not let him do so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
