£ To The €

[Dunroamin]

A Tory government would do anything to stay in power even if it meant destroying whole communities. The Labour lot I'm not so sure about.

 

I think I would rather go for the Tories and hope that I am not in one of the communities you say they destroy rather than Labour and Brown who have destroyed the Country.....Hitler would have been seen as a benevolent dictator compared to what Blair and Brown have done.

 

Mind you, suppose you have forgotten the Tories have had to clear up after every labour administration since the war before being voted out of office as it "was time for a change" - even dear old Winnie Churchill and he won the war!!

[GD4ELI]

A Tory government would do anything to stay in power even if it meant destroying whole communities. The Labour lot I'm not so sure about.

 

I think I would rather go for the Tories and hope that I am not in one of the communities you say they destroy rather than Labour and Brown who have destroyed the Country.....Hitler would have been seen as a benevolent dictator compared to what Blair and Brown have done.

 

Mind you, suppose you have forgotten the Tories have had to clear up after every labour administration since the war before being voted out of office as it "was time for a change" - even dear old Winnie Churchill and he won the war!!

When the Great Maggie came to power the UK was in a dire state. Marvelous woman, I have only voted once in the UK and it was for her.

 

I would love to see her boot some MHK's about

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I think I would rather go for the Tories and hope that I am not in one of the communities you say they destroy rather than Labour and Brown who have destroyed the Country.....Hitler would have been seen as a benevolent dictator compared to what Blair and Brown have done.

 

Mind you, suppose you have forgotten the Tories have had to clear up after every labour administration since the war before being voted out of office as it "was time for a change" - even dear old Winnie Churchill and he won the war!!

 

They are as bad as each other. Same arseholes thinking they know best and doing what is best for the people. Both of them mess up in their own ways. Somehow it has always been the Labour party which has been better at foreign policy and the Tories better at handling domestic matters, though Labour's current foreign policy is shocking at the moment. Nevetheless, you are choosing the same type of people just different personalities.

[P.K.]

Mind you, suppose you have forgotten the Tories have had to clear up after every labour administration since the war before being voted out of office as it "was time for a change"

Oh really?

 

They had inherited a monster trade deficit from the Tories so something had to be done.

Having checked it was about £800m. The Tories did their usual tinkering with interest rates whilst artificially propping up the pound to give middle England the "boom" feeling to get re-elected. Like they always did.

 

Now what was that again about the Tories having to clear up after Labour? Oh dear, wrong administration. Never mind...

[pongo]

A Tory government would do anything to stay in power even if it meant destroying whole communities. The Labour lot I'm not so sure about.

 

I think I would rather go for the Tories and hope that I am not in one of the communities you say they destroy rather than Labour and Brown who have destroyed the Country.....Hitler would have been seen as a benevolent dictator compared to what Blair and Brown have done.

 

Mind you, suppose you have forgotten the Tories have had to clear up after every labour administration since the war before being voted out of office as it "was time for a change" - even dear old Winnie Churchill and he won the war!!

 

Churchill's wartime govt was a national coalition rather than a Conservative administration. Churchill's national coalition had to deal with the mess which it inherited from the previous Tory administration. Historians mostly agree that Churchill was a great national leader in wartime - but never a particularly effective leader of his own party.

 

The previous (- 1940) Tory government was remembered for mass unemployment, running down the military and the appeasement of Hitler. And Churchill had also gone a bit nutty by the end of the war. In the days leading up to the 1945 election he was ranting that a Labour Party victory would lead to a Stalinist style dictatorship. The postwar Labour govt moved Britain towards a consensus which addressed many of the social issues which had been so divisive during the 1930s. And it introduced the NHS - which most people would still agree was a wonderful thing.

 

The last Tory govt (79 - 97) closed down the coal mines for no good reason and squandered the income from North Sea oil on tax cuts and unemployment benefits. Their disastrous economics policies in the early 80s also killed off a large amount of British industry. They always talked about stripping out the dead wood, but their terrible fumbling with the economy in the early 80s destroyed many companies which still had potential. Leaving Britain dangerously over-dependent on the semi-ridiculous financial services industry and the service sector in general.

 

Next time it probably will be time for a change - but the current Labour govt has also done a lot of good IMO. Some things in these islands are fundamentally better, from now on, thanks to the Labour govt. Things which will not be reversed. Eg - The situation in Ireland has been dramatically improved thanks to the Labour Party. John Major's govt definitely made progress there - but his govt would never have stood up to and engaged with the Loyalists in the way that Mo Mowlam did.

[Sebrof]

Next time it probably will be time for a change - but the current Labour govt has also done a lot of good IMO. Some things in these islands are fundamentally better, from now on, thanks to the Labour govt. Things which will not be reversed. Eg - The situation in Ireland has been dramatically improved thanks to the Labour Party. John Major's govt definitely made progress there - but his govt would never have stood up to and engaged with the Loyalists in the way that Mo Mowlam did.

 

Any more examples?

 

You concede that Major's government started the process that Labour has perhaps finished. It is one of Blair's few success stories, but I don't think you can say that the Tories would not have also been successful.

 

Mowlam's death was a tragedy. Though the biggest was the death of John Smith.

 

What might have been, eh?

 

S

[pongo]

You concede that Major's government started the process that Labour has perhaps finished. It is one of Blair's few success stories, but I don't think you can say that the Tories would not have also been successful.

 

The Tory govt would not have been able to move the north towards a lasting peace because the Tory govt (The Conservative & Unionist Party) was being propped up by the Ulster Unionists.

[Sebrof]

You concede that Major's government started the process that Labour has perhaps finished. It is one of Blair's few success stories, but I don't think you can say that the Tories would not have also been successful.

 

The Tory govt would not have been able to move the north towards a lasting peace because the Tory govt (The Conservative & Unionist Party) was being propped up by the Ulster Unionists.

 

Well, I concede that is an argument, but I am not convinced it is definitive. After all, Major was able to bring Adams to the table in the first place. And it was the DUP, not the Unionists, that were the big obstacle.

 

S

[pongo]

After all, Major was able to bring Adams to the table in the first place. And it was the DUP, not the Unionists, that were the big obstacle.

 

I think that the historians and reliable commentators already agree that the Republicans and both govts had been in talks for years trying to get a sense of how each side thought a sustainable settlement might take shape. They were already at the table. And they already knew that it had to be something which would bring everyone along.

 

Mr Trimble refused to talk face-to-face to Mr Adams until 1998. The DUP were still a minority party. Unionists and Loyalists had previously destroyed the power sharing agreement which had been established at Sunningdale in 1973. It was them who needed to be brought to the table. What they ended up agreeing was not so different from the Sunningdale Agreement. It's shocking that it took so long.

 

Historians might ultimately agree that it was the potential economic impact of two enormous lorry bombs in in the City of London which finally persuaded the British govt that they would have to try again to persuade the Unionists towards a lasting settlement.

 

ETA: the UK govt could not have persuaded the Unionists - whilst also depending on them for their votes in the UK Parliament. The Unionists held too much power over Mr Major's govt.

[Sebrof]

After all, Major was able to bring Adams to the table in the first place. And it was the DUP, not the Unionists, that were the big obstacle.

 

I think that the historians and reliable commentators already agree that the Republicans and both govts had been in talks for years trying to get a sense of how each side thought a sustainable settlement might take shape. They were already at the table. And they already knew that it had to be something which would bring everyone along.

 

Mr Trimble refused to talk face-to-face to Mr Adams until 1998. The DUP were still a minority party. Unionists and Loyalists had previously destroyed the power sharing agreement which had been established at Sunningdale in 1973. It was them who needed to be brought to the table. What they ended up agreeing was not so different from the Sunningdale Agreement. It's shocking that it took so long.

 

Historians might ultimately agree that it was the potential economic impact of two enormous lorry bombs in in the City of London which finally persuaded the British govt that they would have to try again to persuade the Unionists towards a lasting settlement.

 

ETA: the UK govt could not have persuaded the Unionists - whilst also depending on them for their votes in the UK Parliament. The Unionists held too much power over Mr Major's govt.

 

So in a nutshell, it was much easier for Blair to bring this off than it would have been for the Tories. Given that the republicans had lost their support and were effectively suing for peace, it was perhaps not such a great achievement.

 

But still worthwhile.

 

S

[Cambon]

So in a nutshell, it was much easier for Blair to bring this off than it would have been for the Tories. Given that the republicans had lost their support and were effectively suing for peace, it was perhaps not such a great achievement.

 

But still worthwhile.

 

S

 

I think you will find that Dubbya's stance against terrorism after the fall of the three World Trade Centre towers probably had the largest affect. The tit for tat violence stopped virtually over night and everyone was suddenly eager to sit around a table.

[Cambon]

A Tory government would do anything to stay in power even if it meant destroying whole communities. The Labour lot I'm not so sure about.

 

That was P.K., not me.

[Cambon]

Now what was that again about the Tories having to clear up after Labour? Oh dear, wrong administration. Never mind...

 

That would be things like the three day week, the winter of discontent, the unions running the country, massive government debts, millions of unemployed.

 

So, when labour took over the debt was £800 billion, now it is 1.3 trillion officially. Unofficially, it is closer to 2 trillion because of the devaluation of the pound to euro (where the majority of the debt is owed)

 

Current unemployment figures don't look too bad compared with the early 80s, but labour changed the way it is calculated, taking out large sections of the population (e.g. 16-18 year olds and job seekers allowance (formerly unemployment benefit)). I read somewhere that if it was calculated in the same manner as in the early 80s the figure is over 6 million.

 

So with auto manufacturers laying off workers for several months on low pay, major retailer like F.W. Woolworth and MFI going bust, and the pound worth little in most foreign markets, we are not far away from needing another Maggie. Unfortunately, the current blues and yellows could not wrestle themselves out of a paper bag, but I would be willing to give them a try over the scottish pair who are doing a bad job at the moment.

[P.K.]

Perhaps the miners remember when Churchill had them forced down the mines at bayonet point?

 

Unfortunately Mr C the major difference between then and now is that the £ used to be pegged. Now it is allowed to float. Such an enormous difference makes your comparisons between then and now somewhat meaningless. When you add the simple fact that the other favourite economic tool of government, interest rates, are now in the hands of the BoE then it's a lot harder to blame the gov for the current woes.

 

With the pound floating essentially UK PLC is in the hands of those generating it's wealth which should be all of us. That unfortunately includes the likes of the executive boards at Northern Crock, RBS, Bradford and Bingley, HBOS etc.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I think you will find that Dubbya's stance against terrorism after the fall of the three World Trade Centre towers probably had the largest affect. The tit for tat violence stopped virtually over night and everyone was suddenly eager to sit around a table.

 

Never heard of any mention of 9/11 having an appreciable impact to the ending of hostilities in Northern Ireland. Quite surprised considering the PIRA campaign is not purely terrorist, though I admit it increasing was from the late 90s.