Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Can the Tories be trusted again? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    But the NHS and Education systems got into a bit of a state. They are now doing much better. I can rememeber what school and hospital like before labour and they have deffinately improved. I have also read in the tory manifesto that they intend to 18 billion from public spending and I can't see that doing any good for health and education I therefore will not be voteing tory.
    The NHS and education system already were in a bit of a state when Thatcher came in - the whole Britain needing help form the IMF to support itself didn't do wonders for public spending. Labour today are capable of spending so much because of Tory economic policies. The strong economy we now have has allowed them to spend very heavily, both because tax revenues are up and because Britain's national debt was drastically cut, allowing Brown to borrow heavily without producing an unmanagable debt.

    Whether you vote Tory or not is your choice, and you should base the decision on today's issues. However, to reject the Tories because of Thatcher's policies is wrong for two reasons: firstly, she's not led the party for well over a decade and you should treat the current leadership on its merits; secondly, her reforms really turned Britain around, and criticising them without considering this fact is unfair in the extreme.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by H&E)
    The NHS and education system already were in a bit of a state when Thatcher came in - the whole Britain needing help form the IMF to support itself didn't do wonders for public spending. Labour today are capable of spending so much because of Tory economic policies. The strong economy we now have has allowed them to spend very heavily, both because tax revenues are up and because Britain's national debt was drastically cut, allowing Brown to borrow heavily without producing an unmanagable debt.

    Whether you vote Tory or not is your choice, and you should base the decision on today's issues. However, to reject the Tories because of Thatcher's policies is wrong for two reasons: firstly, she's not led the party for well over a decade and you should treat the current leadership on its merits; secondly, her reforms really turned Britain around, and criticising them without considering this fact is unfair in the extreme.
    I have lots of more modern reasons for not voteing tory thatcher is way down on my list of reasons.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    I have lots of more modern reasons for not voteing tory thatcher is way down on my list of reasons.
    Fair enough. I'm not out to convince anyone how to vote - I can't even decide myself :confused:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It may be wrong to reject the Tories because of Thatcher's policies, but not for rejecting them for the policies of John Major's government, as the same people are still running the show.

    As I stated earlier, Margaret Thatcher did a great lot of good for this country, but also a great deal of damage. Socially damaging philosophies were propogated during her tenure, and the lasting effects of these remain to be seen.

    Thatcher's redeeming factor was her economic reforms. However, the Howard era policy makers have no such saving grace. Their abhorent misuse of monetary policy was devastating, and they proved that there was a serious error of judgement. They did it before, they may do it again.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by savvy10)
    It may be wrong to reject the Tories because of Thatcher's policies, but not for rejecting them for the policies of John Major's government, as the same people are still running the show.

    As I stated earlier, Margaret Thatcher did a great lot of good for this country, but also a great deal of damage. Socially damaging philosophies were propogated during her tenure, and the lasting effects of these remain to be seen.

    Thatcher's redeeming factor was her economic reforms. However, the Howard era policy makers have no such saving grace. Their abhorent misuse of monetary policy was devastating, and they proved that there was a serious error of judgement. They did it before, they may do it again.
    I think it is extremely unfair to judge the present party on Major's performance. Firstly, the major players in the Major adminisitration are gone. Howard was Home Secratery, but the likes of Major, Clarke, Portillo and co are long gone. Secondly, the Tory party has changed very dramatically since the Major period. That government was absolutely beset by the blood-letting which led to Thatcher's departure; given the experience of IDS, it is a wonder a leader as uncharismatic as Major held his government together for a full term in office.

    I realise you have to judge politicians on their past performance as well as current policies. However, I don't think many members of the Howard cabinet have major blots on their copybooks. Personally, I don't see how the Labour performance in recent years, characterised as it is by hugely increased expenditure and precious little results, intermingled with the sort of corruption Blair claimed resided on the Tory benches alone, would allow a potential voter such as myself to conclude Labour are clearly more competent to rule the their Tory counterparts.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by H&E)
    Whether you vote Tory or not is your choice, and you should base the decision on today's issues. However, to reject the Tories because of Thatcher's policies is wrong for two reasons: firstly, she's not led the party for well over a decade
    Find me one member of the Tory front bench without Thatcherite economic ideals. It is perfectly sound to reject the modern Conservative party because their economic ideals are not one iota less extreme than her's.

    Thatcher's reforms may not have been particularly friendly, but we all owe our relatively comfortable lives to them.
    This is an unfortunate use of the word "all". Try "70%".

    PS - excellent public services are by no means dependent on a "strong" economy. Extreme example, but observe Cuba.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llama boy)
    Find me one member of the Tory front bench without Thatcherite economic ideals. It is perfectly sound to reject the modern Conservative party because their economic ideals are not one iota less extreme than her's.

    This is an unfortunate use of the word "all". Try "70%".

    PS - excellent public services are by no means dependent on a "strong" economy. Extreme example, but observe Cuba.
    free market economics is extreme? hehe! i really dont see how you can say what she did when she came to power was bad for the country.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    free market economics is extreme? hehe!
    I don't intend to get into an entirely superfluous debate on what is and isn't extreme. Thatcher was certainly extreme when she was elected, her legacy is that her ideals are considered much less so now.

    However, I prefer to judge ideas on their merits not on their proximity to the status quo.

    i really dont see how you can say what she did when she came to power was bad for the country.
    That's rather narrow minded.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llama boy)
    Find me one member of the Tory front bench without Thatcherite economic ideals. It is perfectly sound to reject the modern Conservative party because their economic ideals are not one iota less extreme than her's.

    This is an unfortunate use of the word "all". Try "70%".

    PS - excellent public services are by no means dependent on a "strong" economy. Extreme example, but observe Cuba.
    Thatcher's main principle in monetary policy was to have the balls to do what was necessary. The country was being crippled by outdated socialist policies, and these had to be abandoned. That is what she did. I don't think you could call her extreme - she recognised very significant reforms were needed, and therefore carried them through. Relative to the United States, for example, Britain's economy remains heavily regulated (something I consider a very good thing).

    I accept many people took issue with her outlook on life - work hard, care for yourself, screw everyone else. Certainly I don't agree her own lifestyle (kids packed off to boarding school from a young ages, four hours sleep a night) is either healthy or desirable. However, there is no denying her economic policies were extremely beneficial to the country. Generally speaking, my impression following discussions of the 70's with people possessing first hand experience has always been "I didn't realise it was anything like that bad".

    Re 70%: I agree the government (be it Tory or Labour) should be to the left of Thatcher; I believe her own life experiences left her a little blinkered when it came to considering the genuinely needy in society. However, I stand by the fact that we are all benefitting from her improvement of the economy, as Labour's social welfare policies would be unfundable were it not for Thatcher.

    PS: Public services may not rely on a strong economy, but in Britain they certainly do, because the only solution the government has to problems is to throw money at them. The effectiveness of this method is highly debatable.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by H&E)
    Thatcher's main principle in monetary policy was to have the balls to do what was necessary. The country was being crippled by outdated socialist policies, and these had to be abandoned. That is what she did.
    You can't present a particular political position as fact. If you personally believe that Thatcher's policies were right then that is your opinion. I believe otherwise, and am fully aware of both the positive and negative effects of her actions.

    I don't think you could call her extreme - she recognised very significant reforms were needed, and therefore carried them through.
    As I say, I don't think the concept of "extreme" is helpful here.

    Relative to the United States, for example, Britain's economy remains heavily regulated (something I consider a very good thing).
    Not sure of the relevance of this comparison. Britain has more regulation than the US, but then the US has almost the lowest level of regulation in the western world. You could just as easily make a comparison with a European country with a higher level of regulation. I'm not really sure of your point...?

    I accept many people took issue with her outlook on life - work hard, care for yourself, screw everyone else. Certainly I don't agree her own lifestyle (kids packed off to boarding school from a young ages, four hours sleep a night) is either healthy or desirable.
    Well yes, she was a ***** quite apart from her politics. Not sure how relevant this is though.

    However, there is no denying her economic policies were extremely beneficial to the country.
    There is no denying there were positive effects. There is also no denying there were negative effects. Overall, I don't believe they were justified. Please don't try to prevent your personal justification for them as some kind of fait-accompli.

    Generally speaking, my impression following discussions of the 70's with people possessing first hand experience has always been "I didn't realise it was anything like that bad".
    Yes, by all accounts terrible. The working class wouldn't do what they were told at all.

    And whilst we're digging at the infallible mine that is anecdotal evidence, I've got some great stories from the miners' strike. Trust me, you won't believe it was that bad.

    Re 70%: I agree the government (be it Tory or Labour) should be to the left of Thatcher; I believe her own life experiences left her a little blinkered when it came to considering the genuinely needy in society. However, I stand by the fact that we are all benefiting from her improvement of the economy, as Labour's social welfare policies would be unfundable were it not for Thatcher.
    Well, of course you can say they are benefitting in SOME way, but that isn't saying much. A substantial increase in the living standards of the bottom 30% was possible in the 70/80s, just as it is possible now.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llama boy)
    I don't intend to get into an entirely superfluous debate on what is and isn't extreme. Thatcher was certainly extreme when she was elected, her legacy is that her ideals are considered much less so now.

    However, I prefer to judge ideas on their merits not on their proximity to the status quo.
    well the only critique of the latest tory front bench was that it was no different from Thatchers extremities. your affair with the status quo appears to be rather selective.

    That's rather narrow minded.
    not really. i cant think of any reasonable minded person who would suggest that the winter of discontent was preferrable to Thatchers control of the unions.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    well the only critique of the latest tory front bench was that it was no different from Thatchers extremities. your affair with the status quo appears to be rather selective.
    Come now. I never meant to use "extreme" in any objective sense, purely a personal thing. I've made my dislike of the term in an objective sense clear.

    not really. i cant think of any reasonable minded person who would suggest that the winter of discontent was preferable to Thatchers control of the unions.
    Well, I can. The fact that you would confuse rationality with particular political positions just goes to prove my "narrow minded" assertion.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I'll be voting Tory, but only because Labour seems set on screwing the middle classes out of everything we've got. Lesser of two evils.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    not really. i cant think of any reasonable minded person who would suggest that the winter of discontent was preferrable to Thatchers control of the unions.
    so you think poll tax was a good idea then?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llama boy)
    Come now. I never meant to use "extreme" in any objective sense, purely a personal thing. I've made my dislike of the term in an objective sense clear.
    have you? you clearly made a judgement: "It is perfectly sound to reject the modern Conservative party because their economic ideals are not one iota less extreme than her's"

    that sounds highly objective to me.

    Well, I can. The fact that you would confuse rationality with particular political positions just goes to prove my "narrow minded" assertion.
    what is irrational about getting elected on the back of the winter of discontent and then holding office after 4 years of reforms and tackling the unions. the majority of the voting public evidently saw this as a step forward. where is and was the political position?

    (Original post by fishpaste)
    Disregarding all those petty things like economic reform, I'd love to hear an official Tory party line on homosexuality. Whilst I am a big fan of the free market, unfortunately it seems to go hand in hand with undertones of homophobia and other things I don't like. So I'd like to be confident that the Tory party has no problem with me on that front.
    I agree with you to some extent. The conservatives are let down a bit by their stuffiness and refusal to support things like gay marraige, cannabis legalisation etc. However, to be fair, none of the major parties seem to care about these issues and there are apparently a large amount of gay conservative MPs, so I doubt they'd do anything drastically anti-homosexual.

    (Original post by llama boy)
    PS - excellent public services are by no means dependent on a "strong" economy. Extreme example, but observe Cuba.
    It's true that its public services are good at the moment. However, in 50 years, countries with strong free market economies such as Britain and the USA will have experienced half a century of strong economic growth and be considerably richer than they are today - and will accordingly be able to afford better much public services. Cuba, however, will be in much the same position as it is now.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    so you think poll tax was a good idea then?
    hehe, wait until we finish this little chat before we talk about another hot potato.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Harry Potter)
    The conservatives are let down a bit by their stuffiness and refusal to support things like gay marraige, cannabis legalisation etc.
    oh, how terribly old-fashioned. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llama boy)
    You can't present a particular political position as fact. If you personally believe that Thatcher's policies were right then that is your opinion. I believe otherwise, and am fully aware of both the positive and negative effects of her actions. There is no denying there were positive effects. There is also no denying there were negative effects. Overall, I don't believe they were justified. Please don't try to present your personal justification for them as some kind of fait-accompli.
    Right, I've done this before with you (presented opinions as fact) so you're fully justified in criticising me for it. Let me therefore explain why I do feel this is a fact, rather than an opinion. I'll be more than happy to hear why you think I'm wrong. No-one's standard of living is aided by a weak economy - if your workforce is less efficient, income goes down for everybody. This is extremely simplistic, but there is no disputing that if you produce less, you will receive less for what you produce. Thatcher made the British economy much stronger, and this means that Britain can now tackle the undoubted social injustices of which were present before her and are still with us. I don't know the exact increase in expenditure under Labour, but I suspect over £100b since 1997 is a conservative estimate. This could not have been achieved without Thatcher - Britain could barely support itself and massive increases in expenditure were not possible.

    I suspect your disagreement with Thatcherism is principally political, rather than economic. You certainly don't like here ("*****"), and your criticisms of her centre around her atittude to the less privilged. Certainly she comes for a great deal of criticism over these, and deservedly so. Her belief that the only obstacle to success was your own inability to work as hard as you could was very narrow minded, and led to some very unsavoury political policies. However, this does not detract from what I believe to be the positive effects of her economic policies.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fishpaste)
    Disregarding all those petty things like economic reform, I'd love to hear an official Tory party line on homosexuality. Whilst I am a big fan of the free market, unfortunately it seems to go hand in hand with undertones of homophobia and other things I don't like. So I'd like to be confident that the Tory party has no problem with me on that front.
 
 
 
Poll
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.