Most destructive political leaders of the last fifty years

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Jun 12, 2009 7:23 am

Most destructive political leaders of the last fifty years, top three maggie thatcher, tony blair and gordon brown. Which is worst?

I'd put a poll but I don't know how.

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Fri Jun 12, 2009 7:34 am

maggie #1

Post by **spot** » Fri Jun 12, 2009 8:56 am

Maggie Maggie Maggie, Out Out Out.

Not the slightest doubt whatever. The other two may well deserve to stand before the International Criminal Court and I sincerely hope they both will but Maggie wrecked society at home to an unpardonable extent.

Chookie · Post by **Chookie** » Fri Jun 12, 2009 1:46 pm

spot;1202556 wrote: Maggie Maggie Maggie, Out Out Out.

Not the slightest doubt whatever. The other two may well deserve to stand before the International Criminal Court and I sincerely hope they both will but Maggie wrecked society at home to an unpardonable extent.
Agreed 100%.

Chockygirl · Post by **Chockygirl** » Fri Jun 12, 2009 3:33 pm

spot;1202556 wrote: Maggie Maggie Maggie, Out Out Out.

Not the slightest doubt whatever. The other two may well deserve to stand before the International Criminal Court and I sincerely hope they both will but Maggie wrecked society at home to an unpardonable extent.

Would you like to explain more fully?

I remember her being rather rigid and vicious in some of her policies,but I can't remember all the details as to how it impacted on you all.

Rapunzel · Post by **Rapunzel** » Fri Jun 12, 2009 3:50 pm

Maggie Thatcher, without a doubt. The evil Witch of the West.

Why did nobody ever drop a house on her? Or even a trident missile? :sneaky:

TOTALLY agree with Spot and Abbey!!!!!

Post by **spot** » Fri Jun 12, 2009 3:59 pm

Chockygirl;1202630 wrote: Would you like to explain more fully?

I remember her being rather rigid and vicious in some of her policies,but I can't remember all the details as to how it impacted on you all.I think she's best placed to answer that in her own words. Interview for Woman's Own ("no such thing as society") | Margaret Thatcher Foundation is as good a summary as I remember her giving. I'll quote a bit for the thread but you really won't get the entire bile-laden feel unless you read the entire webpage from her site.There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate.Either that repels you to the point where your skin crawls or it doesn't.

Vesuvius · Post by **Vesuvius** » Sun Jun 14, 2009 11:06 am

There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate.

Why does this make your skin crawl Spot? I think Thatcher's quote is always taken a little out of context and needs to be quoted in full.

"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."

It is most likely that the concept of society is a myth, and in its place we actually have a collection of disparate individuals. Given what British society was when Mrs Thatcher took power, and what it is right now, one must admit that this speech was not mere philosophy: it was a political programme, in which the essentials of Thatcherism were clearly described. Today, saying that "there is no such thing as (a British) society" would be stating the obvious.

I'm not sure what society is, who is 'society' how does someone define a 'society' and why is it always seen as a 'good thing' when it can be bad - societies cause genocides, lynchings, discrimination. A lot of the electorate (not all Tory either) would agree with Thatcher that people have to take responsibility for themselves and not expect others to pick up the pieces. That you can't build a civic society unless it is built on a collection of active, socially minded, responsible individuals and families.

It is an argument for freedom of information but also and argument for individuals to take responsibility for their actions and set themselves a standard of behaviour that the society in which they live finds acceptable.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jun 14, 2009 11:12 am

Vesuvius;1202915 wrote: Why does this make your skin crawl Spot? I think Thatcher's quote is always taken a little out of context and needs to be quoted in full.Do you know what? I'm the only poster you'll ever meet who'd give a link back to the Thatcher Foundation's definitive statement of the entire interview. How much more context could you possibly hope for?

Did you not see "I'll quote a bit for the thread but you really won't get the entire bile-laden feel unless you read the entire webpage from her site"? How does that differ from "needs to be quoted in full"?

How do you justify "It is most likely that the concept of society is a myth"? Society's an interpretation, it's as weak or powerful an interpretation as you care to find it. I happen to find it a powerful interpretation in terms of what it can describe, interpret and predict. Dismissing society as a weak concept is a political stance, not a philosophical conclusion.

Vesuvius · Post by **Vesuvius** » Sun Jun 14, 2009 12:23 pm

spot;1202917 wrote: Do you know what? I'm the only poster you'll ever meet who'd give a link back to the Thatcher Foundation's definitive statement of the entire interview. How much more context could you possibly hope for?

Did you not see "I'll quote a bit for the thread but you really won't get the entire bile-laden feel unless you read the entire webpage from her site"? How does that differ from "needs to be quoted in full"?

How do you justify "It is most likely that the concept of society is a myth"? Society's an interpretation, it's as weak or powerful an interpretation as you care to find it. I happen to find it a powerful interpretation in terms of what it can describe, interpret and predict. Dismissing society as a weak concept is a political stance, not a philosophical conclusion.

I put it there for the benefit of other members who might not have the time to go to the website, or the inclination

and how can you have a reasoned discussion without all the facts?

I went to the website and didn't find any bile there, simply the lady in question's opinion. She is, after all entitled to this. As you are to yours.

I concluded long ago that society was a myth..generally people are out for themselves. Yes, they live without certain frameworks, either secular or Biblical, but faced with the him or me scenario, it is always the 'me'. Living by some rules does not justify there being a society. I think that is a moderately philosophical conclusion.

You haven't explained your wrath against the woman! Tell me what she has done to you personally or to us all which has been so bad why don't you?

I believe Thatcher is perfectly correct when she says "There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation." Looking around this once great country today one can see all the good old fashioned, logical, reasonable rational ethics which once held sway have been dispensed with...indeed it is the "I want and I want it NOW generation" with little thought for anyone else..hence, a breakdown of what you call 'society'.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:33 pm

I think all of this is out of context. Maggie was guilty of chucking sooooooooo many babies out with the bath water, but she did stop the worst excesses of the far Left being acceptable. I can wholeheartedly agree that the damage she did was appalling, but the trends she stalled in terms of the benefit society were worth stopping - remember the stories about British Leyland?

No. We needed her, mad bat as she was. I do notice that the Conservative Party has move Left since.

Btw, gmc, Chookie, et al, you do know it was the Dundee Monsters who gave that particular brand of Conservatism its philosophical underpinnings, don't you?

Ok. I'm heading for the bomb shelter.:wah:

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Jun 14, 2009 7:47 pm

gmc;1202508 wrote: Most destructive political leaders of the last fifty years, top three maggie thatcher, tony blair and gordon brown. Which is worst?

I'd put a poll but I don't know how. Really gmc........ you can be such a Rodney at times.

mikeinie · Post by **mikeinie** » Mon Jun 15, 2009 4:11 am

Why is she hated so much? If I remember correctly she was in power around the same time as Roland Reagan and they both were in power during some very difficult economic years.

Reagan was famous for bringing in the military to run air traffic control when there was a strike as the unions needed to be brought into reality to keep the US competitive. (I am not American or an expert so I can be corrected if I am wrong on any of this; I am basing this purely on memory and perception).

Thatcher was kind of in the same situation, to keep the UK competitive some very difficult moves needed to be made, but were they not in the best overall interest of the country?

Politics is easy if you just want leaders to who make easy decisions to keep the masses happy, but is it not their responsibility to act in the best interest in the long term survival of the country? I am sure it would have been a lot easier for her to give into the unions in every demand and not care about the long term impact.

What is it about her that everyone hates? Was it something else?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:34 am

Clodhopper;1203010 wrote: I think all of this is out of context. Maggie was guilty of chucking sooooooooo many babies out with the bath water, but she did stop the worst excesses of the far Left being acceptable. I can wholeheartedly agree that the damage she did was appalling, but the trends she stalled in terms of the benefit society were worth stopping - remember the stories about British Leyland?

No. We needed her, mad bat as she was. I do notice that the Conservative Party has move Left since.

Btw, gmc, Chookie, et al, you do know it was the Dundee Monsters who gave that particular brand of Conservatism its philosophical underpinnings, don't you?

Ok. I'm heading for the bomb shelter.:wah:

Don't know what you are referring to.

posted by mikeinie

Why is she hated so much? If I remember correctly she was in power around the same time as Roland Reagan and they both were in power during some very difficult economic years.

There were some hard political decisions to be made-the unions had become too powerful but one of the problems with our electoral system is that parties gain power without having large scale support-2/3rds of the electorate didn't support her. There are some things that people consider to important to be in private hands-the railway privatisation was a dog's breakfast-other countries take the view that things like infrastructure railways, public transport generally need to be subsidised for the greater good of the economy as a whole-not maggie privatise everything regardless of the consequences.

She destroyed the mining industry in a particularly brutal manner and came close to politicising our police. Electricity generation was switched to gas powered generators instead of spending ,omey on developing clean coal technology-at the time pundits were warmning that twenty years from now the UK would be dependant on foreign gas imports as the north sea oil was used up-it now IS twenty years later and look at what is happening. We even import coal fopr our remaining coal fired stations yet we have amongst the world's largest coal reserves.

Instead of using north sea oil revenues to invest in the UK she used it to give tax cuts to people who didn't need it lumping the rest of us with higher indirect taxes which anyone with half a brain knows impact disproportionately on people with low incomes.

She was the one that started this ludicrous idea that we didn't need industry that we could do well as a service economy (servicing what?) and regulation of the city should be eased or done away with. New labour carried on in the same vein. A lot of the present malaise in our economy goes back to her era and new labour continued in the same vein. This ludicrous idea that the men in the city of london actually created wealth. They don't all they do is shift money around.

In Scotland apart from coal mining and steel we also got the poll tax foisted on us. A form of taxation seen as grossly unjust. Generally speaking we hate her. She effectively destroyed the tory party as a political force and it still hasn't recovered.

She did do some good things but on the whole her influence was baleful-greed became good and devil take the hindmost.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:07 am

mikeinie;1203071 wrote:

What is it about her that everyone hates? Was it something else?

Success, I suppose. What has happened recently is this:

Margaret Thatcher's government made some hard but vital adjustments. Britain was until then commonly called "the sick man of Europe". When she, and eventually the Conservative Gov't. eventually fell, the UK economy was in good shape.

Tony Blair/Bliar came along, and, largely unremarked in an orgy of self-importance, buggered everything up, wasting painfully won gains, and converting an economy that had been in a good position to one in the shadow of a huge mass of crap about to fall on it. He then effed off just before the mass of crap did fall.

Gordon Brown, the longest-serving Chancellor in modern history, and a far less than scintillating one, then misguidedly took the reigns, apparently even without noticing the impending darkness, and the huge mass of crap that had been looming promptly fell, covering everything in a stink of reeking diarrhoea.

That's about it.

mikeinie · Post by **mikeinie** » Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:08 am

gmc;1203093 wrote: Don't know what you are referring to.

posted by mikeinie

There were some hard political decisions to be made-the unions had become too powerful but one of the problems with our electoral system is that parties gain power without having large scale support-2/3rds of the electorate didn't support her. There are some things that people consider to important to be in private hands-the railway privatisation was a dog's breakfast-other countries take the view that things like infrastructure railways, public transport generally need to be subsidised for the greater good of the economy as a whole-not maggie privatise everything regardless of the consequences.

She destroyed the mining industry in a particularly brutal manner and came close to politicising our police. Electricity generation was switched to gas powered generators instead of spending ,omey on developing clean coal technology-at the time pundits were warmning that twenty years from now the UK would be dependant on foreign gas imports as the north sea oil was used up-it now IS twenty years later and look at what is happening. We even import coal fopr our remaining coal fired stations yet we have amongst the world's largest coal reserves.

Instead of using north sea oil revenues to invest in the UK she used it to give tax cuts to people who didn't need it lumping the rest of us with higher indirect taxes which anyone with half a brain knows impact disproportionately on people with low incomes.

She was the one that started this ludicrous idea that we didn't need industry that we could do well as a service economy (servicing what?) and regulation of the city should be eased or done away with. New labour carried on in the same vein. A lot of the present malaise in our economy goes back to her era and new labour continued in the same vein. This ludicrous idea that the men in the city of london actually created wealth. They don't all they do is shift money around.

In Scotland apart from coal mining and steel we also got the poll tax foisted on us. A form of taxation seen as grossly unjust. Generally speaking we hate her. She effectively destroyed the tory party as a political force and it still hasn't recovered.

She did do some good things but on the whole her influence was baleful-greed became good and devil take the hindmost.

Good reply, thanks. I understand.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Jun 15, 2009 12:17 pm

Bill Sikes;1203116 wrote: Success, I suppose. What has happened recently is this:

Margaret Thatcher's government made some hard but vital adjustments. Britain was until then commonly called "the sick man of Europe". When she, and eventually the Conservative Gov't. eventually fell, the UK economy was in good shape.

Tony Blair/Bliar came along, and, largely unremarked in an orgy of self-importance, buggered everything up, wasting painfully won gains, and converting an economy that had been in a good position to one in the shadow of a huge mass of crap about to fall on it. He then effed off just before the mass of crap did fall.

Gordon Brown, the longest-serving Chancellor in modern history, and a far less than scintillating one, then misguidedly took the reigns, apparently even without noticing the impending darkness, and the huge mass of crap that had been looming promptly fell, covering everything in a stink of reeking diarrhoea.

That's about it.

Gordon brown as chancellor bears a large share of the blame in what has happened in our economy. Thatcher started the rot but brown really took the brakes off the city. He's the one that allowed all 125% mortgages that have led to the failure of northern rock et al. Yes there was a problem stemming from america but he was responsible for regulating the banks here. He wrecked what was was one of the best company pension scheme set up in europe he's raided everybody's private pension-that is those those not fortunate enough to be in one of the superannuation schemes but have to pay for them instead and he's surprised when the **** hits the fan.!

I used to think thatcher would go down in history as the most destructive but i think tony blair and gordon brown share equal honours. I loathed maggie thatcher but I've got nothing but utter contempt for blair and brown. A pair of self seeking apparatchiks without a grain of common sense between them.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:55 pm

Can i vote for Bush...... or is just British?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Jun 16, 2009 1:30 am

oscar;1203453 wrote: Can i vote for Bush...... or is just British?

I meant just british. What bush has done to america is their problem and not one I feel knowledgeable to comment on. Besides I get fed up having to be circumspect with my language in case some twit accuses me of being anti american. At least with british posters no one thinks you shouldn't call a politician a lying two faced hypocritical moron and that's just gordon brown. I couldn't stand thatcher but at least she had principles. Brown and Blair are non entities in comparison, pathetic cyphers with all the charisma and usefulness of a dead budgie in a **** factory

At the end of the day we did not have to get involved with Iraq and Afghanistan and once it became clear the reasons for invading iraq were a tissue of lies our parliament should have called the government to account. Sovereign power rests with parliament that it has become so supine and just rubber stamps anything the govt wants is very bad for our democracy and for our future.

The thing is we have had leaders like thatcher and Blair and brown who do not have universal support yet manage to get their way following policies that most of the people in this country for one reason or another are hostile to. If there is one thing that you can say is quintessentially British it is that capacity to turn round and say F--- you to the establishment and anyone else and devil take the consequences. we seem to have lost that instinct. We are not a peaceful nation our history is full of riots and civil uprisings and government that was terrified of annoying the people too much. Democracy comes from below and it's about time we grabbed the political establishment by the balls and started twisting them. there's no real difference between the main party's now we have a choice of shades of depressing grey and PR trained marionettes wringing their hands in false sincerity convinced if they just keep piling on the **** the mushrooms won't know any better.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Jun 16, 2009 1:45 am

gmc;1203627 wrote: I meant just british. What bush has done to america is their problem and not one I feel knowledgeable to comment on. Besides I get fed up having to be circumspect with my language in case some twit accuses me of being anti american. At least with british posters no one thinks you shouldn't call a politician a lying two faced hypocritical moron and that's just gordon brown. I couldn't stand thatcher but at least she had principles. Brown and Blair are non entities in comparison, pathetic cyphers with all the charisma and usefulness of a dead budgie in a **** factory

At the end of the day we did not have to get involved with Iraq and Afghanistan and once it became clear the reasons for invading iraq were a tissue of lies our parliament should have called the government to account. Sovereign power rests with parliament that it has become so supine and just rubber stamps anything the govt wants is very bad for our democracy and for our future.

The thing is we have had leaders like thatcher and Blair and brown who do not have universal support yet manage to get their way following policies that most of the people in this country for one reason or another are hostile to. If there is one thing that you can say is quintessentially British it is that capacity to turn round and say F--- you to the establishment and anyone else and devil take the consequences. we seem to have lost that instinct. We are not a peaceful nation our history is full of riots and civil uprisings and government that was terrified of annoying the people too much. Democracy comes from below and it's about time we grabbed the political establishment by the balls and started twisting them. there's no real difference between the main party's now we have a choice of shades of depressing grey and PR trained marionettes wringing their hands in false sincerity convinced if they just keep piling on the **** the mushrooms won't know any better. Can't say i disagree with you except for the GB part. I really do believe he had the makings of a good PM but surrounded himself with idiots like Harmen, Blears and Smith.

I think the government and all mainstream parties are shocked to the core at the success of the BNP in recent elections. Not because they are more popular as a serious alternative to government but every mainstream politician knows that this is the wake up call. We may have become apathetic as a nation and not rioting in the streets at the establishment but the BNP vote is a protest vote.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:14 am

oscar;1203629 wrote: Can't say i disagree with you except for the GB part. I really do believe he had the makings of a good PM but surrounded himself with idiots like Harmen, Blears and Smith.

I think the government and all mainstream parties are shocked to the core at the success of the BNP in recent elections. Not because they are more popular as a serious alternative to government but every mainstream politician knows that this is the wake up call. We may have become apathetic as a nation and not rioting in the streets at the establishment but the BNP vote is a protest vote.

Who was the one selecting them? He's an idiot that should go before he labour party is completely destroyed. He should be booted out and the whole lot of them lose their rights to pensions etc. They are still not accepting any responsibility for what has happened and blaming factors beyond their control. It's like the captain of the titanic arguing he is the best qualified to steer through the icebergs and there is no reason to slow down and all the stokers (labour MPs) are cheering him on.

He's a moron how can you possibly still be defending him?