Ian Duncan Smith

sceptre

Originally posted by Cork
Tatcher bielved that government should promote competition but in general she believed that state intervention and involvement in the economy should be limited.

Thus, she engaged in a policy of privatising many state services.

I'll assume that means that you don't want to (or more likely, can't) answer the question then. You've had your chance.

If you just feel like debating Thatcher's economic policies while ignoring any link with Labour (as you have so far apart from saying "they didn't renationalise BT therefore they're the same:rolleyes: ), you might as well reply to my post here (in that thread). It's only about a month ago. Actually, you might as well read it anyway before getting back to me.

No-one's denying that Labour have moved away from their hard-left policies of the late 70s and early 80s. This is not the same as Labour either endorsing or following Conservative policies of either before or after 1986. You're posting rubbish and I hope you know it.

Cork

Labour has moved to the centre.

Tony Blair re-positioned Labour.

Political Partys do this all the time.


I think the Conservatives have a future.

I personally am no fan of the Conservatives but I think they'll be back.

Hopefully - the NI peace process will have taken strong root before they re-emerge.

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Cork
No party can make water tieght policys at election time and then hold on to promises for the life span of government.

Things change and governments need to adapt to changes in circumstance.

How have circumstances changed? Blair and co knew full well that they were going to embark on a course of privatisation (see air traffic control among other which they had planned) and reigning in spending as much as possible; education was retracted before he'd spent the first bloody night in number ten near enough!

Labour never intended to fund third level education - neither do any of the other parties; they want training and that means resources such as those dedicated to arts and so on are being reduced - take QUB for example, it was Blair's poodle George Bain (oh he of the Bain report on the FBSNI) who closed the Classics department much to my lasting regret.

No political party under this system can be trusted to stick to their election promises - that much is fact. Call it naive to hope that they would and I say that it's idiotic to sit on your ass, do nothing and be cynical and still use the word naive as a critique in these cases.

Cork

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan


Labour never intended to fund third level education - neither do any of the other parties; they want training and that means resources such as those dedicated to arts and so on are being reduced - take QUB for example, it was Blair's poodle George Bain (oh he of the Bain report on the FBSNI) who closed the Classics department much to my lasting regret.

.

Éomer of Rohan - Third Level Education is expensive. In the Republic Of Ireland - more is spent of third level education than on pre-school, first level or second level.

I think - if resources are to be targeted - they should go to both pre school & primary.

But - I still agree with you - that all levels of education still need funding.

Now, getting back to promises - partys make them. But - say in Ireland - all partys except one have not a snowballs chance of forming a government. So, by and large - party manifestos are useless.

People don't vote on programmes for government.

But in the UK - partys should stick more to manifestos. (they don't bother with coalitions).

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Cork
But in the UK - partys should stick more to manifestos.

Thank you; that is a vindication of my point. If they promise something they stick to it.

A related point is of course that they cannot stick to it and the fundamental nature of the state is that it needs to keep resources dedicated to the workers at their lowest possible figure.

secret_squirrel

Originally posted by Cork
Hopefully - the NI peace process will have taken strong root before they re-emerge.

John Major was the first British Prime Minister to really make a go of the peace process for 30 years, Tony Blair has been living off his credit for years now. Look at the way he has allowed the process to stall.

Cork

Originally posted by secret_squirrel
John Major was the first British Prime Minister to really make a go of the peace process for 30 years, Tony Blair has been living off his credit for years now. Look at the way he has allowed the process to stall.

I give credit to John Major - he was decent.

But I think - he needed the support of unionist on certain votes.

I think politically - his hands were tied sometimes in parliament and relied on their support?

Blair has worked hard on the Preace Process.

I just would prefer to see it take root befiore any return of the Conservatives.

Éomer of Rohan

John Major inherited number 10 at just the right time - the ball had been rolling since British intelligence caught that Libyan arms shipment at sea and was accelerating since the bomb that the bastard IRA failed to kill Thatcher with.

Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem, they all want rid of Northern Ireland whether the Dark Age Party...erm I mean the DUP like it or not.

((On another note, has the swearing ban been removed or is the software to block the words just not working?))