HearFromYourMP

Comments

• Posted by Ian Soady, 12:18, Wed 10 April 2013: (Is this post abusive?) #

  Well said Roger.

  I think it disgraceful that the Labour Party leadership is colluding in the sanctification of an individual who caused more distress and conflict in this country than any other peacetime Prime Minister. Her legacy is the culture of greed and selfishness that led directly to the financial crisis we now find ourselves in.

• Posted by Chris, 13:01, Wed 10 April 2013: (Is this post abusive?) #

  That is not a one sided view at all is it?

• Posted by Richard, 13:01, Wed 10 April 2013: (Is this post abusive?) #

  Here we go with the usual leftist twaddle.

  The unions were wrecking this country against a background of developing far-eastern economic growth. Margaret Thatcher turned this country around by having the courage to face up to the problems.

  As for greed and selfishness, Ian, they have been around long before Margaret Thatcher. If you want to blame individuals for the current financial crises try A Blair, G Brown ,F Goodwin et al.

• Posted by Colin, 13:08, Wed 10 April 2013: (Is this post abusive?) #

  The post-war consensus had collapsed anyway, with monolithic, inefficient loss-making industries, ruled by dinosaur & inflexible unions. Arguably, some of these industries could have been modernised & saved, but with fanatical people like Scargill blocking progress & refusing his members a democratic vote, there was little chance of that. He and his ilk, thought they had the right to bring down democratically elected Governments. Labour has done more than any other Government to squander this country's wealth & to borrow at an astonishing scale, which might be impossible to pay back. Additionally, Labour handed back our EU rebate, with no concessions in return & sold off our gold reserves for a quarter of their present day value. As for unemployment, the current figures equate almost exactly to the number of immigrants which Labour let in with its disastrous open-door policy, which has changed the nature of British culture & society for ever. Tony Benn used to bang on about wanting 'an irreversible shift of wealth & power in favour of the working classes'. Of course, Labour never achieved this (apart from enriching Union leaders). The great irony is that this was achieved by Thatcher, with the sale of council houses. Yes, she made many mistakes, but she was a far greater leader than any of her Labour successors. Why not have a bit of respect & wait until after her burial before complaining about a minute's silence at football grounds? Labour misjudging the public mood completely, as usual.

• Posted by Paul Holloway, 13:19, Wed 10 April 2013: (Is this post abusive?) #

  Misjudging the public mood? You're kidding, right?

  100% support your view, Roger.

• Posted by Mohammed Hemraj, 14:05, Wed 10 April 2013: (Is this post abusive?) #

  Leaders are bound to make a few mistakes but not many mistakes. What are the advisers doing as their duty is to minimise the mistakes a leader makes. It seems decisions taken are mainly to appease the electorates and to ensure the power is retained. Decisions taken by the politicians should be for the interest of the public or the nation but UK seems to be blindly following what Americans do (or tell them to do) in trying to be in their good books and the UK is also dictated by Brussels. The UK politicians cannot therefore take independent decisions, what a pity.

• Posted by Richard Webb, 21:51, Wed 10 April 2013: (Is this post abusive?) #

  And what have we gained from mass immigration which your lot introduced. Absolutely nothing. How dare you mock Mrs Thatcher. Your lot have a lot to answer for with your human right legislation. Tell you what, you left wing nobody's are parasites. Godsif you are nothing.I hate you and your labour party. Rot in Hell

• Posted by Richard Webb, 22:03, Wed 10 April 2013: (Is this post abusive?) #

  This comment has been removed

• Posted by Stephen Freestainton, 01:08, Thu 11 April 2013: (Is this post abusive?) #

  I would prefer to hear that Thatcher could be buried in one inch of page 27 of some obscure regional rag. I shan't mourn the passing of the old "Bag-Lady".

  The post-war Labour governments were responsible for continually nationalising all the major industries. This simultaneously strengthened the unions: most notably by making national strikes possible. But the weak management of other industries also played its part in their demise. As staff in most industries were generally promoted for length of service, rather than any aptitude to manage; the corridors of power became cluttered with inadequates, unable to constructively work with unions on a whole-company basis.

  Thatcher's response was to club the Union of Mineworkers into oblivion; with no thought for miners' families; nor the effect on whole pit-dependent communities, mainly across Wales, Midshires, and Northern areas. She desperately wanted to regain some popularity by being a "war leader"; so she ordered the first action of the Falklands (sinking of the Belgrano) despite the Argies staying OUT of the specified exclusion zone!

  Oil and Gas revenues were then squandered on short-term bloating of financial institutions: following the American way, as extolled by her puppeteer Ronnie Reagan. The de-regulation of Bankers' activities accelerated under Mrs T: leading directly to our current Global recession. I was made redundant from Lucas, as it was systematically dismantled and sold off for short-term shareholder gains. This was typical of the Big-Finance asset-stripping Investment Company activities encouraged by Thatcherite underlings.

  Even after selling off all the public utilities, there was little left in the public coffers after the over-long Tory rule. The apparent surplus in public finances was NOT REAL: it was part of the property-driven investment bubble..... a festering boil which finally burst in 2008.

  Labour supporters should realise that Blair's achievements were only slightly better on aggregate; so also deserve little credit. Labour actually compounded the Banks' impending problems. And thankfully Brown's desperate overspending, ostensibly to buy popular support, was seen through by the last General Election's disenfranchised electors.

  The present government had made a reasonable fist of our nations' near-impossible financial position; until this latest ham-fisted reform of social benefits and housing conditions. Let's hope there are some common-sense revisions before people take to the streets like they did against the "Poll Tax".

• Posted by Colin, 08:31, Thu 11 April 2013: (Is this post abusive?) #

  'ham-fisted' reform of social benefits'? - Perhaps 'ham-fistedness' was the disabling condition affecting the 900,000, who signed off the disabled list rather than be examined. This mass healing is the greatest miracle since Jesus walked the earth & St. Cameron should get the credit.

• Posted by Mohammed Hemraj, 10:10, Thu 11 April 2013: (Is this post abusive?) #

  It is said that there is no free lunch and personally I think the government should remove all the benefits and disability payments for two reasons: It is the taxpayers who are footing the bill and the elderly and the disables should be cared by the relatives as is done in other countries. Again how can it be justified when an unemployed person gets more in benefits than an employed person. The benefit system also makes some people lazy.

  Let me put the policy of Margret Thatcher in proper perspective. To me it seems her aim was to win the next election and the next and the next. Most of her policies were geared towards this and NOT for the benefit of the masses. This meant many people were effected by her policies. It is for the next government to learn previous lessons and not the commit the same blunders again. On whether this will happen, I have my own reservation.

• Posted by Stephen Freestainton, 19:22, Fri 12 April 2013: (Is this post abusive?) #

  We do clearly need to keep paying benefits to deserving cases, as not every disabled, sick, or elderly person has a family network which is willing and able to support them, Mohammed. However, reform of social benefits is long overdue; as the system is too open to abuse, and unemployed folk's energy and ability is a wholly wasted national resource.

  I describe the recent measures as ham-fisted for the following reasons...

  Firstly, re-assessments of disability benefit claimants are being carried out by incompetent and poorly trained people: so they make incorrect decisions. I hear the overwhelming majority of appeals against these decisions are successful: which demonstrates how wrong and wasteful the new procedures are, even if the new rules were justifiable.

  And secondly, the "bedroom tax" combined with making rent payments to council tenants will end in massive revolts. As long as rent is paid directly from one government department to another, rent default numbers are minimised; but now with the bedroom tax, people will apparently be charged more in rent than they receive in benefit. I believe they will be more likely to default on rent payments entirely: why would a tenant pay any rent if expecting to be evicted for bedroom-tax arrears anyway? I expect this could result in similar civil disobedience to that which met the Bag-Lady's Poll Tax.

  To return to the potential of the unemployed workforce; why is job-seeker benefit paid for doing nothing? Many unemployed would welcome the opportunity to work, at least part-time, to feed their own sense of self-worth. Doing any amount of regular work makes a person much more employable, too.

• Posted by Mohammed Hemraj, 16:45, Sat 13 April 2013: (Is this post abusive?) #

  I do not see any family value in the UK compared with other counties in Asia and Africa. Once a child in the UK becomes an adult, he/she wants to be independent and moves out of the parents house and relies on state to provide. A girl can have as many boy friends and have a child at a young age, give up studying and depend on state as a one parent family. Such a child cannot get be married and have a family with legitimate children as she is too young to get married, but having sex and children, no problem. Gay/lesbian marriages, no problem and it is condoned on the pretext of individual rights, although the bible and the Quran mentions the fate of such people which is destruction. The late John F Kenedy had said, don't say what America can do for you, but say what you can do for America, and we the British have to follow the same motto, rather than blame the government.

If you are subscribed to HearFromYourMP in this constituency, log in to post a reply.
Otherwise, if you live in the UK, sign up in order to HearFromYourMP.