Blair goverment

[funkyrich]

Is this goverment the most corrupt we've ever had? Apart from the late Mo Mowlam, I wouldn't trust him or his shady cabinet to tell me the time.

[don1]

If you need to ask the question funkyrich you are obviously not old enough to remember the Tory government 1979-1997, they made Pol Pot look like an honest fair minded politician.

[Dom Tuk]

Corruption....No. I would not blame Blair for corruption. Cronyism- yes (his mates in high office), being miserly with the truth- Yes (tax increases, buying flats etc)., Bad decisons (namely Iraq)-Yes, Arrogance-Yes (10 years in office)

But corruption...no i would not accuse them of that. They have not embezzeled funds, they have not in my opinion takes back handers or used their offices for illegal gain.

See I dont hate them that much.

[Merthyr Imp]

Yes - corruption is not the same as untrustworthiness.

[kempie]

Glad to see that hyperbole is alive and well don1.

[Peter Pedant]

no as a tory

Major's govt was defintiely more corrupt in terms of slease, back handers, and inability to root out corrupt practices, and I am SURE that is why the tories have lost the last three elections

even I was disgusted and fed up

[don1]

kempie, if you think my comment was exaggerated you are either a rabid tory, a person with the attention span of a goldfish, or margaret thatchers toyboy.

[kempie]

Forgive me don1 but I cannot seem to recall the Thatcher/ Major "killing fields" and famine which caused the death of more than 2 million people.

I seem to have also forgotten either of them abolishing currency, religion and private property and evacuating cities; nor did they order the execution of 11 members of their family as far as I remember.

I do apologise for intimating that there was a modicum of exaggeration in your comparison.

btw Dom Tuk corruption does not only mean embezzlement & bribery but also includes cronyism & lying (as attributed to TB by you) as well as other misuses of public office such as freebie holidays.

[littleoldme]

Blimey, let's not go overboard, eh? I'm no fan of the Tories, and especially no fan of the Thatchersaurus, and the last to defend the evil old witch, but think about what you're saying. Pol Pot was directly responsible for the genocide of well over a million of his own people.

I'll gladly accuse Thatcher of a lot, but even I wouldn't go that far.

[funkyrich]

I do remember the tory goverment Don 1 (I was a teenager in the 1980's),but I don't remember quite so many of Thatcher's cabinet being dismissed one minute for commiting a misdemeanour then being let back in when it suits e.g- Peter Mandleson,Steven byers etc...

[bernardo]

Loads of corruption and cronyism was rampant in governments in the 18th and early 19th centuries.  But in modern times (since 1945ish) it probably is.

[bernardo]

kempie is obviously not old enough to remember Thatcher dropping all those nuclear bombs on Scotland in 1981, when more than 300 million people were killed.

[kempie]

Yup, missed that... probably didn't buy the Daily Mirror that day.

[don1]

Pol POt ruled over a third world country and comitted unbelievable atrocities.

Margaret Thatcher ruled over one of the richest countries in the "FREE" world and quite deliberately put approximately 5.75 million people out of work to destroy the unions and create an endless supply of cheap labour so that her buddies could get rich having the British working people working for third world level wages. The filthy ****** was an atrocity.

Of course kempie being one who was obviously not affected by this vermin you can claim it was just politics.

Try living it.

I dont see the analogy as being that far removed

[don1]

I neglected to say as one who had his life ruined by this vermin I had to live it.

[kempie]

Thatcher ruled over one of the richest countries in the "FREE" world.

So you admit the country benefitted economically because of her governance since she certainly didn't inherit a rich country. From 1974-1979 the UK, or "sick man of Europe", was in terminal decline due to the Labour policy of pay restraint and cuts in public spending, culminating in the "winter of discontent". Jim Callaghan wasn't about to turn the problem around - "Crisis? What Crisis?"

It's also unsurprising to see you have exaggerated the figures for increased unemployment.
Pre Thatcher = 1 million
Thatcher High = 4 million

This difference of 3 million should have been sufficient for your rant, however you seem compelled to inflate the figure by 75%.

People are more likely to consider your point of view as valid if you would stick to the facts.

[jno]

Corrupt isn't the same as untrustworthy. I think Majorites like Aitken and Hamilton were more corrupt than people in the present government. Nonetheless, I'm unimpressed with the way they crawl to the rich - Mandelson would be a good example, and Blair's luxury holidays - and Blunkett helping his mistress's nanny (wasn't it?) jump the visa queue was clearly improper.

I suspect that under Major - himself an honest man, as far as I know - MPs suspected their time was running out, and started to look for ways to line their own pockets. This explanation doesn't apply to the likes of Mandelson; they're just greedy.

Don't want to get into Pol Pottiana, but kempie please note that Callaghan never said 'Crisis, what crisis?'  The Sun made it up.

[kempie]

I never attributed the quote to Mr. Callaghan - I am well aware that it was the headline run by The Sun in response to the question:
"What is your general approach, in view of the mounting chaos in the country at the moment?"

To which Callaghan replied:
"Well, that's a judgment that you are making. I promise you that if you look at it from outside, and perhaps you're taking rather a parochial view at the moment, I don't think that other people in the world would share the view that there is mounting chaos."

[don1]

Kempie, I DO stick to the facts if you think unemployment under thatcher was only 4 million then you are obviously a daily mail or a daily express reader.

[kempie]

don1 - I long ago gave up on expecting a rational answer from you in this thread.

I'm intrigued from where your 'facts' derive. Maybe you could ask New Labour to supply you with unemployment statistics for the past quarter-century. Rest assured even their figures will in no way approach your bloated version... here is a link with their email address.

You could always check the Office for National Statistics (a government department) but unfortunately for you they place the highest figure (1st quarter 1984) at 3.6 million.

As for trying to divine my daily reading habits, I do not trust any story as reported in any newspaper, which is why I have used information researched from other sources.

[kempie]

* typo in above post - should read 3.36 million.