Jeremy Corbyn

[Deleted member 15344]

Sorry Phil but you only saw it from one point of view, like me. I wasn't a child though and understood how the country prospered as a whole and why it was necessary.

I'll say it again - it's not a point of view I'm seeing it from - it's seeing the actual damage that was caused and the lives that were ruined and in a number of cases were lost.

If you believe it was "necessary" for people's lives to be ruined then that's a disappointing thing to read.

 

[chrisd]

I'll say it again - it's not a point of view I'm seeing it from - it's seeing the actual damage that was caused and the lives that were ruined and in a number of cases were lost.

If you believe it was "necessary" for people's lives to be ruined then that's a disappointing thing to read.

Don't twist an argument to a ridiculous level Phil.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Don't twist an argument to a ridiculous level Phil.

Not twisting anything Chris

Her actions ruined people's lives and I witnessed it first hand

You believe those actions were necessary ? Sorry but any action that results in such a poor effect on people isn't necessary - a lot of people still feel the effects of those actions to this day.

 

[chrisd]

V

Not twisting anything Chris

Her actions ruined people's lives and I witnessed it first hand

You believe those actions were necessary ? Sorry but any action that results in such a poor effect on people isn't necessary - a lot of people still feel the effects of those actions to this day.

Actions of politicians can ruin people's lives during every term of office and no one condones that, decisions are made nationally, regional and even globally but we are talking the wider picture - were her 3 terms of office successful? I believe over all they were, you don't. It's just not on to accuse me of not being caring just to score points on a forum.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

V

Actions of politicians can ruin people's lives during every term of office and no one condones that, decisions are made nationally, regional and even globally but we are talking the wider picture - were her 3 terms of office successful? I believe over all they were, you don't. It's just not on to accuse me of not being caring just to score points on a forum.

And it's not on to accuse me of looking to score points when I'm telling you that Thatchers actions weren't for the good of the whole country and I'm giving you facts that they effected millions in a negative way.

Managed decline is a disgraceful phrase - but that's exactly what was suggested by her cabinet in regards Liverpool.

 

[chrisd]

And it's not on to accuse me of looking to score points when I'm telling you that Thatchers actions weren't for the good of the whole country and I'm giving you facts that they effected millions in a negative way.

Managed decline is a disgraceful phrase - but that's exactly what was suggested by her cabinet in regards Liverpool.

I never said that what she did was for the good of the whole country or every person individually, but the country was going to the dogs when she was elected and she turned it round. If the majority believed as you did she would not have been elected for 3 terms of office. I quite understand the resentment against her in certain areas of the country but I'm keeping this as broad as possible - she was a great Prime Minister of her time

 

[FairwayDodger]

I think one thing that few would dispute about Thatcher is that she was one of the most divisive prime ministers we've ever had. For that reason alone, IMO, she doesn't deserve to be considered a "great" leader.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I never said that what she did was for the good of the whole country or every person individually, but the country was going to the dogs when she was elected and she turned it round. If the majority believed as you did she would not have been elected for 3 terms of office. I quite understand the resentment against her in certain areas of the country but I'm keeping this as broad as possible - she was a great Prime Minister of her time

Because the way our elections are run you do not need to have the majority of the vote to be Prime Minister - believe Cameron only won just over 30% of the vote this time

You said early that the country prospered as a whole because of he actions - that's not factually correct.

A lot of areas in the country weren't turned around and in fact were left to rot or as her cabinet said - managed decline

The reaction to her dying will tell you that the country was very much split in regards how they viewed her as a prime minister

 

[Pin-seeker]

I've never heard anyone from my area say a good word about her.
My Dad is an ex miner so obviously wasn't a fan.

 

[bluewolf]

I think one thing that few would dispute about Thatcher is that she was one of the most divisive prime ministers we've ever had. For that reason alone, IMO, she doesn't deserve to be considered a "great" leader.

IMO, her only real claim to greatness was that she opened the door for Women to rise to the very top of British politics. A door that shut right behind her. I'll let smarter minds than mine decide why the door shut again.

 

[chrisd]

Because the way our elections are run you do not need to have the majority of the vote to be Prime Minister - believe Cameron only won just over 30% of the vote this time

You said early that the country prospered as a whole because of he actions - that's not factually correct.

A lot of areas in the country weren't turned around and in fact were left to rot or as her cabinet said - managed decline

The reaction to her dying will tell you that the country was very much split in regards how they viewed her as a prime minister

She was elected to serve 3 terms of office, if people who didn't like her, didn't vote, that's their fault, the system to vote her out was available to them

I know all the negatives about her reign but my comment about the country benefitting as a whole was just that - I was not meaning any particular city, town county, group of people or individual but the country itself.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

She was elected to serve 3 terms of office, if people who didn't like her, didn't vote, that's their fault, the system to vote her out was available to them

I know all the negatives about her reign but my comment about the country benefitting as a whole was just that - I was not meaning any particular city, town county, group of people or individual but the country itself.

The country is the people - they are the ones affected by any choice or decision

Her actions were not for the good of the whole country - the results of those actions prove that

I know how the election works im just highlighting that you don't have to have a majority to be PM so your statement about "the majority wouldn't have voted for her 3 times" isn't factual correct

 

[chrisd]

The country is the people - they are the ones affected by any choice or decision

Her actions were not for the good of the whole country - the results of those actions prove that

I know how the election works im just highlighting that you don't have to have a majority to be PM so your statement about "the majority wouldn't have voted for her 3 times" isn't factual correct

Should I have been more pedantic and said " the majority of those who voted" ?
Whatever Phil, she was still PM over a long term and I believe her actions over all were " for the overall good of the country" - then there was Tony Blair!!

 

[One Planer]

The country is the people - they are the ones affected by any choice or decision

Her actions were not for the good of the whole country - the results of those actions prove that

I know how the election works im just highlighting that you don't have to have a majority to be PM so your statement about "the majority wouldn't have voted for her 3 times" isn't factual correct

Just a point here.

If she did such a poor job for the country, both nationally and regionally, why was she voted in for 3 terms?

Surely, if she did such a poor job on a national and regional level, this would never happened.

If someone could explain that I'd appreciate it.

I was born in 1982 so I'm not complacent with all the facts.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Should I have been more pedantic and said " the majority of those who voted" ?
Whatever Phil, she was still PM over a long term and I believe her actions over all were " for the overall good of the country" - then there was Tony Blair!!

Even then it's not the majority of those who voted - she may have got more votes than each other single candidate but unless she got more than 50% of the overall votes then she didn't have the majority supporting her.

It's not being pedantic etc it's just being factual correct and highlighting to you that Thatcher wasn't good for the whole country but she was good for certain parts and her supporters.

Same with Blair etc etc

 

[Pin-seeker]

Just a point here.

If she did such a poor job for the country, both nationally and regionally, why was she voted in for 3 terms?

Surely, if she did such a poor job on a national and regional level, this would never happened.

If someone could explain that I'd appreciate it.

I was born in 1982 so I'm not complacent with all the facts.

Great year to be born in.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Just a point here.

If she did such a poor job for the country, both nationally and regionally, why was she voted in for 3 terms?

Surely, if she did such a poor job on a national and regional level, this would never happened.

If someone could explain that I'd appreciate it.

I was born in 1982 so I'm not complacent with all the facts.

She was voted in by the people she did do a good job for

Again just like Cameron etc none of them need the majority of the country to vote for them to be PM

 

[FairwayDodger]

Just a point here.

If she did such a poor job for the country, both nationally and regionally, why was she voted in for 3 terms?

Surely, if she did such a poor job on a national and regional level, this would never happened.

If someone could explain that I'd appreciate it.

I was born in 1982 so I'm not complacent with all the facts.

She was despised during her first term and seemingly had no chance of re-election but the country was pretty supportive of her handling of the Falklands so she was re-elected on a short term bubble of popularity.

Plus labour, as is often their way, put up pretty unelectable leaders against her at both her re-elections.

 

[One Planer]

She was voted in by the people she did do a good job for

Again just like Cameron etc none of them need the majority of the country to vote for them to be PM

Does that not suggest she did right by most people then?

Surely if the reverse were true she would not have served servings and third terms?

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Does that not suggest she did right by most people then?

Surely if the reverse were true she would not have served servings and third terms?

If by most you mean a majority of the country beyond 50% then the answer is no

She gained 40% of the voting public support - that's not the majority of the country.

Her second term was of the back of the Falklands and splits within Labour