Jeremy Corbyn

[One Planer]

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

The voting public still had other candidates to vote for, yes?

Why we're these not voted in if she did such a poor job regardless of how bad they were.

As per Karens post above. If the opposition are putting forward unlectable candidates, it only strengthens the position that she was the best person, at the time, to run the country and the voting public agreed. If they hadn't, she would have been voted out.

Forget majorities. She was elected based on receiving the most votes from the voting public, the same as any other election at any other time.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

It's not a point of view Chris - it's seeing it first hand myself , it's seeing the effect it had on my family and the effect it had on friends families. - just to make it clear i was there as child in the 70's and 80's and can remember the day I was told my uncle was gone. Where you there in the cities of the North West ? If not then it doesn't take long to read up the actual accounts - factual accounts of what misery she caused for millions.

It's not a point of view Chris - it's factual.

Would you care to detail what actions and what effects or are you, as usual, merely repeating rhetoric.

As you say you were a child at the time whilst some of us were a little older and could see the effects of rampant inflation, poor labour relations, lack of investment and industrial decline that preceded her election in 1979.

Some of her Governments' actions were divisive but, perhaps sadly, at least until 1987 her style of governing was necessary for this country's survival.

As for the reference to Hillsborough that was "covered up" by successive governments until the 2010 Coalition.

 

[chrisd]

The fact is that she was elected for 3 terms, if she didn't do a good job for the first two that wouldn't have happened. No Government do an altogether bad job in office, not even Tony Blair, although his decisions ultimately lead to many unnecessary deaths in the Iraq war which would mar his record for many people, he still had policies that were good ones. David Cameron will, at the end of his time will be loathed and liked by people, probably in equal measure.

We mainly judge politicians on just a few crucial things during their tenure but forget the majority of things that their government do positively.

 

[bluewolf]

The voting public still had other candidates to vote for, yes?

Why we're these not voted in if she did such a poor job regardless of how bad they were.

As per Karens post above. If the opposition are putting forward unlectable candidates, it only strengthens the position that she was the best person, at the time, to run the country and the voting public agreed. If they hadn't, she would have been voted out.

Forget majorities. She was elected based on receiving the most votes from the voting public, the same as any other election at any other time.

At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, just because a person was voted in by the "majority of the voting public" doesn't necessarily mean that said person was the best person for the job or the Country. You don't have to go too far back, or too far away to see that this is the case..

 

[Deleted member 15344]

The voting public still had other candidates to vote for, yes?

Why we're these not voted in if she did such a poor job regardless of how bad they were.

As per Karens post above. If the opposition are putting forward unlectable candidates, it only strengthens the position that she was the best person, at the time, to run the country and the voting public agreed. If they hadn't, she would have been voted out.

Forget majorities. She was elected based on receiving the most votes from the voting public, the same as any other election at any other time.

But none of that backs the suggestion that she was a great leader and her actions were good for the whole country

It's the same with any PM - because of the way our system works it doesn't always mean they end up being a great leader.

A lot of areas in the country suffered because of her actions - that will never change

She was voted back in by the people that gained from the conservatives being in power - that doesn't mean it's good for the whole country , just like right now or when Labour were winning .

 

[Doon frae Troon]

I have often wondered what kind of country we would have had if Heseltine had won that power struggle with Thatcher.
He was a really able man and IMO would have been a very successful leader.
Some decent cabinet members at that time as well, until they became popular and Thatcher sacked them.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Would you care to detail what actions and what effects or are you, as usual, merely repeating rhetoric.

As you say you were a child at the time whilst some of us were a little older and could see the effects of rampant inflation, poor labour relations, lack of investment and industrial decline that preceded her election in 1979.

Some of her Governments' actions were divisive but, perhaps sadly, at least until 1987 her style of governing was necessary for this country's survival.

As for the reference to Hillsborough that was "covered up" by successive governments until the 2010 Coalition.

How much details would you like in regards the effects it had on my family or my friends family or their friends families - would you like to know that my uncle lost his job because of actions of her government , then struggled to maintain for his family losing their home and ultimately his pride and then his life - and i wouldn't be the only person to tell a story like that in regards the actions of the government in 1980/81

 

[Deleted member 18588]

How much details would you like in regards the effects it had on my family or my friends family or their friends families - would you like to know that my uncle lost his job because of actions of her government , then struggled to maintain for his family losing their home and ultimately his pride and then his life - and i wouldn't be the only person to tell a story like that in regards the actions of the government in 1980/81

What actions of the Government?

If you are to continue your claim that your point is factual then you will need to support it with facts.

 

[chrisd]

But none of that backs the suggestion that she was a great leader and her actions were good for the whole country

It's the same with any PM - because of the way our system works it doesn't always mean they end up being a great leader.

A lot of areas in the country suffered because of her actions - that will never change

She was voted back in by the people that gained from the conservatives being in power - that doesn't mean it's good for the whole country , just like right now or when Labour were winning .

Her actions were good for the country IMO, as a whole, you will never agree, but not the whole country. She was a great leader, but you will never agree. The country, using its tried and trusted voting system voted the Conservatives in to power on 3 consecutive terms, however you pick pedantically at the wording that was the end result of those elections.

I'm more than happy to concede that she didn't do good for the whole country and, for certain, areas of the country suffered. I suffered during Gordon Browns cocking up the economy, I won't forgive him and, to me, he will never be considered a great leader - that's politics!

 

[SocketRocket]

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

40% is irrelevant. You know as well as anyone that our polling system is based on who gets the most votes so why make these comments that if they weren't voted in by a majority they don't have a mandate!


Anyhow. As you don't vote your opinion is worthless.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Her actions were good for the country IMO, as a whole, you will never agree, but not the whole country. She was a great leader, but you will never agree. The country, using its tried and trusted voting system voted the Conservatives in to power on 3 consecutive terms, however you pick pedantically at the wording that was the end result of those elections.

I'm more than happy to concede that she didn't do good for the whole country and, for certain, areas of the country suffered. I suffered during Gordon Browns cocking up the economy, I won't forgive him and, to me, he will never be considered a great leader - that's politics!

Sorry but you can't call someone so devisive a "great leader"

The fact people in her own country celebrated her dying to the point millions bought a record to get it to number one shows exactly how a lot of people felt about her - that's not the pen picture of a "great leader"

 

[Snelly]

Mrs T? I was only a lad but old enough to remember rubbish on the streets, power cuts and everyone on strike, holding the nation to ransom.

The unions needed smashing to bits and and fair play to her for doing it.

Shame she is not around today to destroy the closed shop that the Tube drivers operate. £50K for driving an underground train is a joke. Invest in automated trains (that exist in other city networks around the world) and get shot of them all. Cameron doesn't have the minerals to deal with them effectively but the Iron Lady would have given them both barrels by now.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

40% is irrelevant. You know as well as anyone that our polling system is based on who gets the most votes so why make these comments that if they weren't voted in by a majority they don't have a mandate!


Anyhow. As you don't vote your opinion is worthless.

Excuse me ? Everyone is entitled to an opinion and to voice their opinion regardless of if I voted or not

When did I say she didn't have a mandate ?!

 

[Deleted member 18588]

Sorry but you can't call someone so devisive a "great leader"

The fact people in her own country celebrated her dying to the point millions bought a record to get it to number one shows exactly how a lot of people felt about her - that's not the pen picture of a "great leader"

I would suggest that the vast majority of those were not old enough to have any real knowledge of her policies or actions and based their actions upon popular rhetoric promoted by left-leaning journalists.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Despite what the workers believe, companies are not run by the 'shop floor'.

Not the point I was making.

 

[One Planer]

But none of that backs the suggestion that she was a great leader and her actions were good for the whole country

It's the same with any PM - because of the way our system works it doesn't always mean they end up being a great leader.

A lot of areas in the country suffered because of her actions - that will never change

She was voted back in by the people that gained from the conservatives being in power - that doesn't mean it's good for the whole country , just like right now or when Labour were winning .

Well if the majority vote makes you a great leader who does great things for their country, the chap running North Korea deserves a medal!

 

[bluewolf]

Well if the majority vote makes you a great leader who does great things for their country, the chap running North Korea deserves a medal!

I'm no longer sure who you are agreeing (or disagreeing) with now...

 

[TheDiablo]

Sorry but you can't call someone so devisive a "great leader"

The fact people in her own country celebrated her dying to the point millions bought a record to get it to number one shows exactly how a lot of people felt about her - that's not the pen picture of a "great leader"

For someone who loves 'facts' more than Rafa Benitez you also love an exaggeration!

 

[Fyldewhite]

The Thatcher years. Big parallels to today. All the talk of Labour imploding and not much about what that will lead to......Thatcher years II.

Some want this. Most don't. It most certainly won't, like it didn't first time around, make Britain (as a whole) a better place.

 

[bluewolf]

The Thatcher years. Big parallels to today. All the talk of Labour imploding and not much about what that will lead to......Thatcher years II.

Some want this. Most don't. It most certainly won't, like it didn't first time around, make Britain (as a whole) a better place.

To be fair to those who believe that the Thatcher years made the whole Country better, I suppose we can only make informed judgements by what we see around us on a daily basis.

As a child of the 70's (and please don't condescend to tell me that your opinion is more informed than mine because you were older), the areas that surrounded me were kitchen sink Council estates, where poverty and unemployment were commonplace. My peers were teenagers with little or no prospects. Or ex-miners who had their livelihoods taken away...

My Father still won't have the word "Thatcher" said in his home. He wasn't someone who celebrated her death, but I don't think he shed a tear...

the times may have been better in some areas, but they weren't better in mine.. However, at least we got a great music scene out of it..