|
|
Post by Pacifico on Sept 24, 2024 10:48:37 GMT
What 'hard right' policies did Thatcher introduce? I can give you the outcomes, like thousands of businesses folding, people out of work approaching 4 Million, 3 million children living in relative poverty, the huge cut in funding most state schools caused by her introduction of 'Grant Maintained' schools, the serious damage done to the NHS, the selling off of Natural Gas and North Sea Oil which has meant an ongoing loss to the UK economy of billions of pounds. If you believe that businesses fold, unemployment and poverty only happen under the 'Far right' then, boy, are you in for a shock. Privatised energy companies are not 'far right', countries around the globe have done the same - including China..  |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Sept 24, 2024 18:10:46 GMT
I can give you the outcomes, like thousands of businesses folding, people out of work approaching 4 Million, 3 million children living in relative poverty, the huge cut in funding most state schools caused by her introduction of 'Grant Maintained' schools, the serious damage done to the NHS, the selling off of Natural Gas and North Sea Oil which has meant an ongoing loss to the UK economy of billions of pounds. If you believe that businesses fold, unemployment and poverty only happen under the 'Far right' then, boy, are you in for a shock. Privatised energy companies are not 'far right', countries around the globe have done the same - including China.. Why are you attempting to make excuses for Thatcher's callous hard right actions? |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Sept 24, 2024 21:12:34 GMT
If you believe that businesses fold, unemployment and poverty only happen under the 'Far right' then, boy, are you in for a shock. Privatised energy companies are not 'far right', countries around the globe have done the same - including China.. Why are you attempting to make excuses for Thatcher's callous hard right actions? I'm just pointing out your stupidity - nothing you have highlighted is specific to the 'hard right' |
|
|
|
Post by dodgydave on Sept 24, 2024 22:08:29 GMT
I don't think you quite grasped my point. The mail didn't convince her the dome was a waste of money, they convinced somebody who thinks the government is wasteful that the dome was a waste of money. They did this to make money, not because they care that the dome is a waste of money. Say two websites with equal traffic ran the same story about a celebrity falling over in high heels and breaking her ankle: Headline one reads: Taylor Swift breaks ankle. Headline two reads: Taylor Swift suffers wardrobe malfunction. The story is about the same person, so in your theory they should get equal clicks. However we both know the wardrobe malfunction headline would get more clicks because (1) her fans would click on it (2) every male would click on it because it suggests some kind of nudity. I didn't mention the Mail, nor did she, nor did she mention anything about the costs. Attempting to defending the indefensible by making things up in your mind, seems to be your forte. Imagine the arrogance of believing everybody else is "fooled by the media" except you... which appears to be your point. I have no idea what you thought about my point because for the millionth time on here, you don't engage in the debate, you just grasp the nearest strawman. You were talking earlier about the Mail so YES YOU DID MENTION THE MAIL... rightly or wrongly I assumed you were continuing with that line. Anyway, it doesn't matter if she read it in the Mail or on the back of a toilet door, the point remains the same, somebody sold her a narrative she was open too. Go on you can do, for once in your life try to engage with the point I made... the media provides the narrative people are seeking to make money. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Sept 25, 2024 7:25:15 GMT
Why are you attempting to make excuses for Thatcher's callous hard right actions? I'm just pointing out your stupidity - nothing you have highlighted is specific to the 'hard right' Everything I pointed out was specific to Thatcher, and you think I'm stupid LOL |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Sept 25, 2024 7:26:51 GMT
I'm just pointing out your stupidity - nothing you have highlighted is specific to the 'hard right' Everything I pointed out was specific to Thatcher, and you think I'm stupid LOL Thatcher was not 'hard-right' - hence your stupidity. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Sept 25, 2024 7:29:21 GMT
Everything I pointed out was specific to Thatcher, and you think I'm stupid LOL Thatcher was not 'hard-right' - hence your stupidity. We don't think he is stupid, we know he is stupid. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Sept 25, 2024 7:30:02 GMT
I didn't mention the Mail, nor did she, nor did she mention anything about the costs. Attempting to defending the indefensible by making things up in your mind, seems to be your forte. I have no idea what you thought about my point because for the millionth time on here, you don't engage in the debate, you just grasp the nearest strawman. You were talking earlier about the Mail so YES YOU DID MENTION THE MAIL... rightly or wrongly I assumed you were continuing with that line. Anyway, it doesn't matter if she read it in the Mail or on the back of a toilet door, the point remains the same, somebody sold her a narrative she was open too. Go on you can do, for once in your life try to engage with the point I made... the media provides the narrative people are seeking to make money. A big fat Lie ^^ followed by more lies. It seems you have to lie in order to attempts to force YOUR points of view onto others. It seems that you live in a sad little world of your own. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Sept 25, 2024 7:32:04 GMT
Everything I pointed out was specific to Thatcher, and you think I'm stupid LOL Thatcher was not 'hard-right' - hence your stupidity. Two faults in your over opinionated imagination ^^ making you the stupid one. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Sept 25, 2024 7:35:12 GMT
Thatcher was not 'hard-right' - hence your stupidity. We don't think he is stupid, we know he is stupid. Says someone who spends their time insulting others ^^ and apparently eager to spread lies about me. As expected from the 'less than a full shilling' Rightists. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Sept 25, 2024 7:40:02 GMT
Thatcher was not 'hard-right' - hence your stupidity. Two faults in your over opinionated imagination ^^ making you the stupid one. Well as you are unable to articulate a single policy that made Thatcher 'hard-right' we must all draw our own conclusions about your opinion.. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Sept 25, 2024 8:06:03 GMT
Two faults in your over opinionated imagination ^^ making you the stupid one. Well as you are unable to articulate a single policy that made Thatcher 'hard-right' we must all draw our own conclusions about your opinion.. Thatcher is known by her callous actions, as I listed, to be hard right. You turning a blind eye to her actions changes nothing. It just exposes yourself as at minimum Hard-Right (and that would come as no surprise), or perhaps Far-Right. But absolutely not in any way as a politically moderate. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 25, 2024 8:35:48 GMT
Well as you are unable to articulate a single policy that made Thatcher 'hard-right' we must all draw our own conclusions about your opinion.. Thatcher is known by her callous actions, as I listed, to be hard right. You turning a blind eye to her actions changes nothing. It just exposes yourself as at minimum Hard-Right (and that would come as no surprise), or perhaps Far-Right. But absolutely not in any way as a politically moderate. If being callous is a measure of far right then net zero seeking is by far the biggest far right policy on earth, not to mention winter fuel allowance withdrawal. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Sept 25, 2024 16:16:18 GMT
Thatcher is known by her callous actions, as I listed, to be hard right. You turning a blind eye to her actions changes nothing. It just exposes yourself as at minimum Hard-Right (and that would come as no surprise), or perhaps Far-Right. But absolutely not in any way as a politically moderate. If being callous is a measure of far right then net zero seeking is by far the biggest far right policy on earth, not to mention winter fuel allowance withdrawal. A Rightist doing his best to distort reality into something that appeases his Rightist position ^^ Your comment (grabbing at straws) about Net Zero is ridiculous. I would agree that the cutting of WFA was (IMO) harsher than it needed to be, but what it shows about this government is that it is determined to undo the false and failing economy left by the Tories for Labour. This government will address problems no matter whether it is seen as a right of center or a left of center problem. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Sept 25, 2024 18:11:05 GMT
If being callous is a measure of far right then net zero seeking is by far the biggest far right policy on earth, not to mention winter fuel allowance withdrawal. A Rightist doing his best to distort reality into something that appeases his Rightist position ^^ Your comment (grabbing at straws) about Net Zero is ridiculous. I would agree that the cutting of WFA was (IMO) harsher than it needed to be, but what it shows about this government is that it is determined to undo the false and failing economy left by the Tories for Labour. This government will address problems no matter whether it is seen as a right of center or a left of center problem. So let's dissect this, let's say the Tories won the General Election, and we now have a serving Tory government.
If they dare, and I mean dare to suggest cutting the winter fuel allowance for pensioners, let me tell you something, and you know it full well ... Starmer/Rayner/Labour would have had a political football like no other, even bigger than the Covid football they played.
Labour/ Daily Mirror would never let it drop with MAIN headlines like ....... 'Tories the Old will Die of Cold' ... that would be similar headlines if the Tories dare cut the winter fuel allowance for pensioners, but Starmer/Labour avoid such headlines ........................ WHY??
|
|
