Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

boynamedsue

Members
  • Posts

    468
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by boynamedsue

  1. I'll believe this when another paper takes up this story. I suspect there's factual basis somewhere, but I doubt the true story comes close to what the mail printed. I wonder how long the 50 quid pasta thing went on for, if it ever went on?
  2. Scargill was striking to protect jobs not money. If anyone else had been in charge in 84, they'd have probably won, but that's by-the-by,
  3. Good job wiki-warrior, but I'm talking about events which happened in 1973. Like I say, buy book....
  4. Did they mention that the miners went on strike when inflation had eaten away at their wages at a time when coal was earning a record price due to the oil crisis? The energy crisis resulting from this was the cause of the 3 day week.
  5. Wow, that is big news if it happens. The Observer is a terrible paper, it should be put out of its misery.
  6. Major was an excellent politican, I particularly respect him for reining in the authoritarian tendencies of the Thatcher years, putting the police back in their box, and starting peace negotiations with the IRA despite them having tried to kill him. His party didn't give him much control of anything beyond these aspects, as they were too busy choking on satsumas and conducing power struggles over who would be the next leader (of the 14 year opposition!). He should have devalued after the election in '92, as labour would have, but if he had we'd never have heard the end of it. He also rejected racist and homophobic rhetoric, all the cultural changes in British society we associate with the Blair years came from his mandate.
  7. Well, it happened under a tory government, and Ted Heath declared it, and it was a result of his industrial policies. Top tip, buy books, then read them. It will allow you to comment in an informed manner.
  8. It had problems, but her economic policies killed off a lot of viable companies, and that's without getting into coal and electricity. The only reason people remember the '80s as a time of prosperity is black and liquid and belongs to Scotland, otherwise she'd have been fcuked.
  9. And in all other countries standards of living fell during the '80s. Thank God Maggie invented the VCR.
  10. First of all, Labour were in power for 11 years of the 20 preceeding 1979, and 13 of the preceeding 40 years. To solely blame Labour for the state of the British post war economy is just stupid, but you hear it so often in the tory press that I can't blame you for parroting it. There were problems with industrial relations, but by far the biggest problem of British industry was poor management, and lack of investment in new capital and r+d. This problem goes back to at least the 30s, and continues today, Britain has the worst managers in Europe. As to Thatcher, she destroyed British industry with her monetary policy in her first three years, stretching what should have been a two year period of mass unemployment into a 5 year one.
  11. The Tories killed British industry between 1979-1984. Labour didn't do anything to fix it, but that was because it had bought into the tory economic model. Something which, for all of you who say the Guardian was a New Labour cheerleader, 75% of the commentators on that paper criticised. Oh, and by the way, pointing out spelling mistakes in forum posts is both big and clever. I salute you.
  12. The tories would have done more or less the same, but with different beneficiaries. The banks would still have had to be bailed out, there would still have been a credit bubble. But we'd have worse public services, the rich would be richer, and the immigrants who work for minimum wage would be earning only 2/3 of what they get now. The Major and Thatcher governments were both even more disasterous for the country, as they smashed industry and put the whole economy in the hands of the city. Major was actually excellent in some ways, but he was surrounded by a shower of shit and he privatised the railways, an unforgivable act of ideological vandalism.
  13. Yep, in an article where every other sentence bar two is critical of them. New Lab is also the best government of my political lifetime, and I hate the bastards.
  14. Toynbee consistently criticised the government for not doing enough to help the poor, though she praised some things Labour had done. She even said "vote labour and hold your nose" in 2005. There were some columnists who were pure Blairites, but it's a paper of the centre-left, and it represented a range of views in that part of the population. All of them thought that labour was better than the tories, because no matter what labour did, the tories would do worse (the same reason I voted labour for the first time in 10 years last time round). But it's worth remembering, if you asked Nu Lab what paper they truly hated, they'd tell you the Guardian, because its editorial line attacked them from the left.
  15. That's the same Guardian that was New Labour's biggest critic from 2000-2007? Read much Larry Elliot?
  16. That's as maybe, but its not the Guardian's fault. Its education and society sections were very well marketed and reached the target audience. You could make the same criticism of the T.E.S. I'd agree that advertising this way is going to be obsolete in the medium term, but it was the only way in 2000. Well, yeah it is simplistic, cause this is a forum not a doctoral thesis. But to say the Guardian was supported enthusiastically is false. It got advertising, as did all the broadsheets, but New Labour loathed the Guardian, especially from 2003. It's amazing how many on here slate the beeb and the graun as new labour fanzines, when they were the ones who most fiercely opposed the government from 1997-2007. Does anybody remember the David Kelly scandal at all?
  17. They claim that on the basis of the number IP's they are accessed from. Might be half as many individuals, but it's still a hell of a lot.
  18. I was answering someone else's idiotic post saying that people only read the Guardian when they were forced to. But to take you up on your argument, i'ts pretty stupid. The infuence a publication has is based on the quality of argument it makes and the support it has from sections of the establishment. If you believe that circulation figures should decide how much influence people have on political policy, then we should ignore Milton Freedman and hand over control of the BOE to Danielle Steele. You may be right in saying that they can't charge enough to maintain their current business model, but that has no bearing at all on their quality. In my opinion the only paper of a similar quality is the Telegraph, the sindy and Times are just not serious enough on economics and foreign affairs.
  19. Not the point, the Guardian appeals to a lot of people and represnts the opinions of one section of the political elite. You can disagree with them if you want, and I do quite a bit, them being a bit right-wing for my tastes, but to say that nobody wants to read their opinions is crap. They have a combined on-line and print readership of about 35 and a half million a month. The problem they have is their business model, it's very expensive to maintain quality coverage of the world (and quality is a fair word, even if you don't agree with the opinions expressed, I'd never say the Torygraph was owt but quality), when nobody will pay for anything they get from a computer.
  20. Apart from the 350,000 paying readers and the fact its the second most read British paper on the net...
  21. If you have to bury something in the countryside, and hope someone doesn't find it then, a: it is not the ideal investment vehicle, b: things have got so bad that it doesn't really matter if you have it or not, in fact it is probably a liability. People convicted of corruption in China (which burying gold which was due to be taxed or confiscated would surely be) are often executed.
  22. No, I didn't. You're saying, witout any evidence, that the majority of children born to people dependent on benefits live their lives on benefits. And that happens in some cases, but nothing like the majority. You also assume, without evidence, that people dependent on benefits at the time their child is born never work again. That happens only in a tiny minority of cases. It's like the posts we get on here complaining that Council Houses have got cable, when tonnes of council houses are inhabited by people who have jobs.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.