1001 reasons NEVER to vote Labour

[expat]

And for the benefit of Google.
.....

doesn't that kind of stuff just get you out of the listings?

[DimPrawn]

Only if we go too far. As long as total keyword density is less than a certain amount, we'll be fine.



Ps. Don't vote labour.

[BoredBloke]

"The disproprtionately high higher rate tax could have been brought down more slowly along with increases in personal allowances and lower taxation at the lower end of the pay scale. More money in the pockets of the poor. More spending, faster turnaround. This could have still been done in conjunction with her plans to reduce the power of trade unions."

So let me get this straight, your prblem with Thatcher is to do with tax levels and personal allowences and not the levels of unemployment in the 80's.

[malvolio]

Jesus, get a new record. That was 20 years ago. And if you weren't taking notice back then, it was stated up front that people would have to lose jobs while the economy was restructured, and then we would get back to something far more prosperous. But hey, you're talking politics, not reality...

FWIW, this crowd has done more systemic damage to our economy than anyone has managed since Palmerston. Fixing it will now cause far more grief than Thatcher ever did. Have you not noticed, for example, that tax revenue has gone up 10% since last year? That the PSBR is at record levels? That all the income generated by the country is produced by just 17 million people? That fiscal drag has brought 100,000 more into the higher rate tax band, including such overpaid parasites as staff nurses and police constables? That we've gone from the among the best pensions provisions in the world to among the worst in just 4 years?

Personally, I'd go back to the 80's tomorrow. At least we then had a future to look forward to.

[BoredBloke]

Why not try reading past the last post and you will see that I was not criticising the Thatcher govt and was picking a hole in his argument.

[wendigo100]

Why not try reading past the last post and you will see that I was not criticising the Thatcher govt and was picking a hole in his argument.

Too late Tony, now everyone thinks you are talking bollox!

Seriously Mavolio, Tony was paraphrasing benn0, who saw the light and left the boards in shame. That was a pity because he nearly had me convinced that we'd be now be better off if Jim Callaghan had won the 1979 election and the Labour party had continued in government throughout the intervening 26 years.

[DimPrawn]

Reason no. 389

John Prescott - Deputy Prime Minister.

WTF? Now Blair is slime and Brown is a greedy (but lucky) chancellor, but wtf is that fat, uneducated, rude, useless tw@t, Two Jabs doing in any government......

[zathras]

Reason no. 389

John Prescott - Deputy Prime Minister.

WTF? Now Blair is slime and Brown is a greedy (but lucky) chancellor, but wtf is that fat, uneducated, rude, useless tw@t, Two Jabs doing in any government......

Blocking the way to the slime one I think!

[Fungus]

Reason no. 389

John Prescott - Deputy Prime Minister.

WTF? Now Blair is slime and Brown is a greedy (but lucky) chancellor, but wtf is that fat, uneducated, rude, useless tw@t, Two Jabs doing in any government......

Weren't Blair and Prescott the dream ticket?

Blair = posh modern smooth one (spreads straight from the fridge), Prescott = gruff honest down to Earth working class one. One to pull in the middle classes, the other to pull in the working trad. Labour lot.

But instead we've got Blair = slimey ineffectual dishonest toad and Prescott = direct gruff working class but ineffectual one. I can't add a comment about Prescott's honesty because I can't understand what he says.

Fungus.

[Fungus]

Look up John Maynard Keynes on Google.

He explains the law of demand and supply.

I have no problem with repressing the power of the Unions because at the end of the seventies I agree they were too powerful.

However, thatcher's policies of redistibuting wealth to the rich mean't that more money ended up in the pockets of the wealthy rather than the pockets of the less affluent.

By definition the less affluent spend all their income.

Therefore.

The disproprtionately high higher rate tax could have been brought down more slowly along with increases in personal allowances and lower taxation at the lower end of the pay scale. More money in the pockets of the poor. More spending, faster turnaround. This could have still been done in conjunction with her plans to reduce the power of trade unions.

Thatcher actively ignored these options. She viewed lower paid workers as pawns that could be sacrificed for her peceived greater good.This is why many people I grew up with are still very bitter about her and her ilk.

Look Elton you keep saying "thatcher's policies of redistibuting wealth to the rich" without explaining what you mean. I've asked you for examples, without luck.

Do you mean the cutting of the absurd 80% tax levels that were driving the wealth creators abroad? If so, well how come tax takes went up as a result? Could it be because wealthy people could once more afford to live in this country?

You say: "She viewed lower paid workers as pawns that could be sacrificed for her peceived greater good."

What rubbish. I think you should blame Scargill, Red Robbo etc for that. Mrs. T. came from a modest background, and believed in hard work, and honesty.

The poor suffer the most from a destroyed economy. Thatcher created a flourishing economy, with more ordinary people owning their own homes than ever before. She increased access to higher education for the working classes and poor.

Fungus