[Closed] Who's the most hated- Blair or Thatcher?

You lot are to be stepped on by [b][u]all[/u][/b] the political zombie parties regardless of who they are. 🙄

These clever people? They'd be the ones in 'The City' I presume?

Blair deffo most hated, under him parliament spent 700 hours debating fox hunting between 97 and 04.

And the still made the wrong decision....

We have ourselves to blame for Thatcher but were tricked by Bliar - and it's not just the fighting. Whilst the global economy problem wasn't his and Brown's fault the overspending they did before that would have caused us problems anyway - there would have been a bust eventually just because of the way personal debt was going.

jambalaya - Member
These clever people? They'd be the ones in 'The City' I presume?

Interesting that the failed financial institutions where all non-London RBS, HBOS, Northern Rock, Bradford and Bingley etc

Scottish even. Like the two chancellors that repsided over the bit of a mess that saw us enter the GFC financially naked.

'The City' is more an ideology/tyranny/independent nation state than a geographical location

@digga - I was going to post the Scottish connection but I decided not to be too controversial. I think the point is that they where regional banks trying to "make it big" and over extended themselves. @binners I do think it's relevant that they where not financial institutions from "the city", ie the center of finance in the UK.

Back to the gist of the OP; http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/25/save-the-children-furious-charity-global-legacy-tony-blair

99,700+ votes against Blair so far on the "ASK 'SAVE THE CHILDREN' TO REVOKE THEIR ANNUAL GLOBAL LEGACY AWARD GIVEN TO TONY BLAIR" online petition: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/25/save-the-children-furious-charity-global-legacy-tony-blair <

Despite big banks bringing down the global economy (more of a fault of post Thatcher governments and more particularly Brown), it is actually small to medium sized businesses that are the backbone of this countries economy. And thanks to Thatcher they have been allowed to thrive. Surely one of her legacies has to be normal people suddenly having the ability and opportunity to set up shop themselves and compete on the global stage, and benefit from the fruits of their own labour. The success in the '80's was more about average Joe Bloggs succeeding than pinstripe shirted city share traders. However I realise that ambition and the desire to succeed and improves ones position in life is a trait that appears to be generally frowned upon on this forum.

jambalaya - agreed. But geography isn't really the point. Getting back onto the original subject, these banks (City based or not) were all taking ridiculous risks with other peoples money, then rewarding themselves to truly obscene levels, exploiting a deregulated, wild-west financial market entirely made possible, and positively encouraged by her Ladyship (may she rot in hell!)

Weren't the vast majority of banks in the city bailed out by the US TARP scheme and European equivalent.

I do think it's relevant that they where not financial institutions from "the city", ie the center of finance in the UK.

But you're refering to just UK banks in the context of a global recession. Didn't a lot of the US/International banks that went tits up have a big City presence? eg. Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Lehmans etc.

And I don't think Brown can be accused of casing the recession. It just happend on his watch. I thought the Yanks started it with all that sub-prime malarkey. (though my memory might be faulty)

O/T other than you can't stick that one on Thatcher, but the major de-regualtion of banking that led to the GFC was nuder Gordon Brown's watch. He even admitted as much in 2011: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13032013

Our current situation is not really the result of Blair/Brown or Thatcher's policies really, it's more systemic than that.
The economy grew fast after WW2 because our GDP at the end of that was so low (we were close to broke) - any growth would look high as a %. We also had the demographic bonanza of the baby boomer generation - more people = more work = more earnings = more spending = more GDP.
That came to an end in the 70s.
Thatcher realised this and went for liberalising the markets but that didn't really solve the problem so Blair/Brown kept our living standards increasing by borrowing massively and encouraging consumers into debt. Loose lending standards for mortgages was also part of this game.
Then the inevitable came in 2008.

But the main point here is that it was neither Thatcher or Blair/Brown that caused the crash. This game of liberalisation and debt was being played by all of the Western economies - Europe, USA, Canada, Australia etc.

I know it's comforting to scapegoat leaders or a particular colour of politician but this is so much bigger than party ideology or policy. We simply don't have the ability to keep growing the economy in the way we got used to from 1946 - mid-70's.

The demographic dividend of the baby boomer generation that gave us that growth is now going sharply into reverse as they become dependent on the economy rather than fuelling it. There's not a government policy which can deal with the fundamentals of demography... the harsh choices are either robots/technology to do the jobs or massive immigration, and we all know how well the great British public are responding to that idea...

Looking back, it would've been better for the Tories in 1979 to admit the fundamentals were too weak and managed us into low economic growth. Problem with that of course is that the electorate wouldn't have supported it - we like being rich...

^^^^ what he said good post

there are clever people out there who don't agree with most of the claptrap written by the guardianista's on here!

However I realise that ambition and the desire to succeed and improves ones position in life is a trait that appears to be generally frowned upon on this forum.

Basically she made it ok to be selfish and to think of yourself rather than all of us.

[i]But you're refering to just UK banks in the context of a global recession. Didn't a lot of the US/International banks that went tits up have a big City presence? eg. Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Lehmans etc.

And I don't think Brown can be accused of casing the recession. It just happend on his watch. I thought the Yanks started it with all that sub-prime malarkey. (though my memory might be faulty)[/i]

Shhhhhh....you need to be careful coming out with factual stuff like that! 😐

[i]Basically she made it ok to be selfish and to think of yourself rather than all of us.[/i]

Utter Bollocks! If we were all like you, where would the taxes come to pay for the NHS, schools etc etc. We'd be completely bankrupt! She made the UK more aspirational, because people saw that if they worked hard, they got rewarded and the Country became wealthier as a result......which in turn paid the bills. I'm not talking about the City either.

Binners - you may wish to enhance your analysis by referring to what was the main trigger for the crisis, where this originated and whether this was state or bank-inspired. Then look at how states interfered in the pricing of risk to compensate for past errors by flooding the world with liquidity at a time of artificially low interest rates - sound familiar. Blaming it in bankers solely misses the point by a country mile.

(Consider the origin of RBS's bad loans and Barc for that matter and then who pushed Lloyds into the fatal acquisition that almost killed them?)

Brooess - good point. This is not a case of failed liberalisation, we are in a crisis of leverage- different things. Too much of it and this extends across many different economic and political models.

Re - supply side economics, ironic that the main supply-side proponent now is a French socialist. We could do with a lot more of this over here to address our appalling productivity levels - that's how you improve pay not by silly political gestures. Instead we have the folly of T Hunt spouting BS about independent education. It makes you weep.

Pigeon holing Blair, Regan, Thatcher into ideologies is pretty pointless IMO. Strip away the rhetoric and the lazy reporting and the most consistent trends are that most leaders implement policies that are more likely to be associated with the opposition of the time. Just look at fiscal records here and in the US. Who cuts spending more - Republicans or Democrats?

Thatcher may have a carried a copy of The Road to Serfdom in her handbag, but that is about as far as she got.

If we were all like you, where would the taxes come to pay for the NHS, schools etc etc. We'd be completely bankrupt!

Gawd bless it and you 🙄

[img] [/img]

people saw that if they worked hard, they got rewarded and the Country became wealthier as a result

She more than doubled unemployment.

If "the country became wealthier" then all that proves is that you can work less hard and still become wealthier.

Which I suspect isn't true, and is the complete opposite of the point that you are apparently trying to make.

She made the UK more aspirational

By selling them the houses they already lived in and then, through the catastrophic mismanagement of the ERM withdrawl, had the banks charge them 15% interest on the debt they didn't need in the first place. But everybody did get to wear white slip ons for a bit and lemon leShark polo shirts too, so that's good.

By selling them the houses they already lived in

IIRC this was a policy considered by the Labour government before they got voted out in '79.

The point being, that it wasn't either Labour or Tories who created the current mess - neither ideology managed to cover up the fall in our underlying postwar economic growth and neither managed to find an effective and stable way to replace it.

ie: neither ideology actually has a solution. A pragmatic mix of the two, managed by a technocratic government might.

I see you didn't call me out on the slip ons. Guilty as charged.

The point being......

The point being that it was Tory policy to sell off council houses, not Labour policy.

A point which you appear to have missed.

Did the current tenants benefit from buying? Got good discounts right? Good for them/bad for the country?

Bad for all of us - a(nother) utility commodotized. See people now leveraging massively to afford pony housing that when rates go back up will see them in penury/out on their arse. But still the elite and the services industry leviathans are benefitting nicely.

I can sort of understand those among you of a vaguely right-leaning disposition who weren't around at the time of Thatcher wondering why all the hatred. However, if you were around and 'economically active' and in the manufacturing industry (especially if you were a union member).....

I have heard of a theory that Blair is the bastard son of Thatcher.

Going back to the OP and original question....

but who is the least popular?

A very difficult queestion as I am not sure either are any where near popular......

A better question may be ...

Who is most UNpopular .....

And in this case I would suggest that in the UK Maggie probably shades it but in the wider world it is most likely Bliar

Either way would suggest that neither would win any imaginable popularity contest any where

[url= http://www.cityam.com/1416968352/treasury-reaps-reward-tax-cuts ]Loadsamoney[/url]

£80bn. By cutting taxes.

Just saying, like...

I hated the unions a lot more than Thatcher. Power cuts were a part of my childhood. Does anyone think the UK coal mining industry would have flourished today had the unions won the fight?

Woppit - I'd use the point the arse fell out of the world economy as my benchmark too, totally representative.

These seem to show Thatcher is more respected:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Prime_Ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mps-vote-margaret-thatcher-best-modern-prime-minister-9035124.html

http://listverse.com/2007/10/25/the-top-10-british-prime-ministers/

I hated the unions a lot more than Thatcher.

Yeah I hate equal pay for men and women, holiday pay, maternity pay, better pay generally, protection from arbitrary sacking and better safety standards too. Bastards.

No bad things you can think of then?

There are negative things about the unions of course - but to dismiss them out of hand as a malign influence is idiocy of the highest order and just shows how easily people swallow right-wing propaganda.

I assume all those who hate the unions will be renouncing all the stuff I mentioned above in their workplace?

He probably meant on balance the way the unions were in the 70s/early 80s caused more harm than good.

I hate Thatcher far more.

Blair got some things wrong but his Government made a lot of progress when it comes to NHS and education, policing, social housing, minimum wage where as the Tories had pretty much abandoned a lot of these things.

New Labour's biggest failure was not breaking the neo-liberal agenda set by Thatcher/Reagan and instead trying to use it as a force for good. The deregulation of the finance sector that occurred under the Tories in the 80s and 90s should have been reversed. Unfortunately very few people were talking about that back then as everyone thought we were doing rather well.

EDIT - How many of you can honestly say that in the mid 2000s you were saying we must stop all the reckless financial shenanigans?

Well going back to the OP, it would appear that there a few Thatcher 'non' haters here, but not much support for Blair, which would seem to answer the question satisfactorily.

Personally I don't think and have never thought Blair was fit to wipe Maggie's arse, but each to their own eh. For me, he was a typical snake oil salesman, whilst Mrs Thatch said what she thought....always! I didn't always agree but I admired that.

Is this a thread about the good old days?

[i]I have heard of a theory that Blair is the bastard son of Thatcher.[/i]

I think in fact is was the old witch herself that said her greatest triumph was New Labour and Blair.

By which of course she meant that the once laughed at policies of the Chicago school had become so mainstream that even Labour had had to remake themselves to fit the new orthodoxy.

So diverting this off track again .. 🙂

But geography isn't really the point. Getting back onto the original subject, these banks (City based or not) were all taking ridiculous risks with other peoples money, then rewarding themselves to truly obscene levels, exploiting a deregulated, wild-west financial market entirely made possible, and positively encouraged by her Ladyship (may she rot in hell!)

But you're refering to just UK banks in the context of a global recession. Didn't a lot of the US/International banks that went tits up have a big City presence? eg. Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Lehmans etc.

And I don't think Brown can be accused of casing the recession. It just happend on his watch. I thought the Yanks started it with all that sub-prime malarkey. (though my memory might be faulty)

Even without Thatcher the mining industry would have wound down, burning coal is just too environmentally unfriendly to continue. Also as per @moshimonster I remember power cuts as a child, IMO the miners signed their own "death warrant" with those actions as there was very little sympathy for them after that.

If you think of the big union battles miners, dockers, printers pretty much all of those businesses no longer exist or are relevant - with or without Thatcher - the world changes and we use containers now and the internet for news, alternative energy etc.

Our current situation is not really the result of Blair/Brown or Thatcher's policies really, it's more systemic than that.
The economy grew fast after WW2 because our GDP at the end of that was so low (we were close to broke) - any growth would look high as a %. We also had the demographic bonanza of the baby boomer generation - more people = more work = more earnings = more spending = more GDP.
That came to an end in the 70s.
Thatcher realised this and went for liberalising the markets but that didn't really solve the problem so Blair/Brown kept our living standards increasing by borrowing massively and encouraging consumers into debt. Loose lending standards for mortgages was also part of this game.
Then the inevitable came in 2008.

But the main point here is that it was neither Thatcher or Blair/Brown that caused the crash. This game of liberalisation and debt was being played by all of the Western economies - Europe, USA, Canada, Australia etc.

I know it's comforting to scapegoat leaders or a particular colour of politician but this is so much bigger than party ideology or policy. We simply don't have the ability to keep growing the economy in the way we got used to from 1946 - mid-70's.

The demographic dividend of the baby boomer generation that gave us that growth is now going sharply into reverse as they become dependent on the economy rather than fuelling it. There's not a government policy which can deal with the fundamentals of demography... the harsh choices are either robots/technology to do the jobs or massive immigration, and we all know how well the great British public are responding to that idea...

Looking back, it would've been better for the Tories in 1979 to admit the fundamentals were too weak and managed us into low economic growth. Problem with that of course is that the electorate wouldn't have supported it - we like being rich...

In a nutshell - there it is.

We've been living beyond our means for some time now and the measures that our politicians can take to keep the falsehood going are getting fewer and fewer.

Mrs Thatch said what she thought

If she had she would not have won any elections. So instead she talked about reducing unemployment, government spending, taxes, crime, etc, and all the stuff about putting harmony where there is discord, and hope where there is despair, and so on, none of which she had any intention of achieving.

She kept schtum about making wealthy people wealthier and trebling unemployment to weaken trade unions and keep wages low.

ernie_lynch - Member

Mrs Thatch said what she thought

If she had she would not have won any elections. So instead she talked about reducing unemployment, government spending, taxes, crime, etc, and all the stuff about putting harmony where there is discord, and hope where there is despair, and so on, none of which she had any intention of achieving.

Basicly all the crap they all spoiut every 4 years.

She kept schtum about making wealthy people wealthier and trebling unemployment to weaken trade unions and keep wages low.

ansd sellinganything of value the governmnet had control of to asset strippers to disect and sack staff, to m\ke profits for shareholders, very few of whom where the public.

British Rail and the national bus company along with the water companies spring to mind, where companies where sold for peanuts, asset stripped of property and buildings, and little or no investment put in, before being resold to foreign companies.

For the general publicv, both bliar and thatcher where seen as evil pathetic people and both are hated in equal measure.