Iraq enquiry

[Redbul]

I would argue the 'greatest' Prime Minister of the 20th century was David Lloyd George.

 

+1, even if he was Welsh.

[Thedelldays]

I would say winston churchill myself

[Mao Cap]

I would say winston churchill myself

 

A very good war leader to whom we all owe a great deal (though not as great as the popular myth makes out) but a failure in peacetime both before and after the war. And, frankly, a bit of a *****.

[Thedelldays]

A very good war leader to whom we all owe a great deal (though not as great as the popular myth makes out) but a failure in peacetime both before and after the war. And, frankly, a bit of a *****.

could not care less...to me (and probably the greater population) for what he did during the war was enough to make him the greatest

[Mao Cap]

Fair enough. I don't think you can compare a wartime leader to an ordinary peacetime Prime Minister though.

 

Clement Attlee for me.

[bungle]

Robert Banks Jenkinson, the Earl of Liverpool. 1812-1827. What a PM.

[benjii]

I got an amazing PM from LonglifeCherry.

[Micky]

I got an amazing PM from LonglifeCherry.

 

Pray share - I need a good laugh...!

[Joensuu]

could not care less...to me (and probably the greater population) for what he did during the war was enough to make him the greatest

 

Hmmm, but the greater public buy vast quantities of Ok and Heat magazines and watch programmes with Katie Price in. They don't always get it right.

 

...nor of course did Winston, who royally messed up by opting to revert back to the gold standard in 1925: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard#Suspending_gold_payments_to_fund_the_war

 

[For me it has to be a tie between Attlee and Lloyd George (especially love his womanising ways) ]

[Thedelldays]

Hmmm, but the greater public buy vast quantities of Ok and Heat magazines and watch programmes with Katie Price in. They don't always get it right.

 

err

 

no they dont...

 

didnt the BBC do a series of shows a few years back trying to find out who people thought was the greatest brit in history...

 

I believe churchill topped the poll

[Johnny Bognor]

For me, it has to be Tony Blair.

 

He managed make an unelectable party electable, con an entire nation and be the first prime minister in a long time who didn't get booted out by his own party or the electorate. He was so good, in fact, that even those who were conned by him would rather slag off the traditional enemy (MT) rather than the man that took them for a ride and made them look like complete mugs.

 

Don't like what he stood for, but anyone has to admit that as a politician he was a bloody genius.

[Thedelldays]

For me, it has to be Tony Blair.

 

He managed make an unelectable party electable, con an entire nation and be the first prime minister in a long time who didn't get booted out by his own party or the electorate. He was so good, in fact, that even those who were conned by him would rather slag off the traditional enemy (MT) rather than the man that took them for a ride and made them look like complete mugs.

 

Don't like what he stood for, but anyone has to admit that as a politician he was a bloody genius.

 

 

agree with this......he was one of the best politicians we will ever see in our life time

[JackFrost]

For me, it has to be Tony Blair.

 

He managed make an unelectable party electable, con an entire nation and be the first prime minister in a long time who didn't get booted out by his own party or the electorate. He was so good, in fact, that even those who were conned by him would rather slag off the traditional enemy (MT) rather than the man that took them for a ride and made them look like complete mugs.

 

Don't like what he stood for, but anyone has to admit that as a politician he was a bloody genius.

 

Agree,

 

and to top it all off, after being a key character in one of the most disastrous military invasions of another country in a very long time, becomes a middle eastern peace envoy in his next job.

[Sheaf Saint]

Agree,

 

and to top it all off, after being a key character in one of the most disastrous military invasions of another country in a very long time, becomes a middle eastern peace envoy in his next job.

 

At which point he promptly buggered off on holiday while Israel rolled the tanks into Gaza last year. Was anybody else concerned that the UN Peace Envoy for the area was deafening with his silence during the entire conflict?

Edited 27 November, 2009 by Sheaf Saint

[OldNick]

At which point he promptly buggered off on holiday while Israel rolled the tanks into Gaza last year. Was anybody else concerned that the UN Peace Envoy for the area was deafening with his silence during the entire conflict?

Teflon Tony.

It would be great if he was brought to the Hague on war crimes

[OldNick]

Churchill and Maggie for me. Both grasped the nettle and made difficult decisions that ultimatlely shaped the nation.

[Johnny Bognor]

Agree,

 

and to top it all off, after being a key character in one of the most disastrous military invasions of another country in a very long time, becomes a middle eastern peace envoy in his next job.

 

At which point he promptly buggered off on holiday while Israel rolled the tanks into Gaza last year. Was anybody else concerned that the UN Peace Envoy for the area was deafening with his silence during the entire conflict?

 

Indeed. He has re-invented "taking the p-i-s-s"

[Red&White]

Ha ha what a joke, that woman is a witch and was responsible for overseeing the rise of greed, materialism and everything that was so sickening about the yuppy culture of the 80's, plus lets not forget the 15% interest rates etc, although I suppose that was Labour's fault. She is without doubt one of the most despicable characters ever in British history.

 

Spot on !

[Thedelldays]

so then..

 

Maggie or Blair..

 

who left the most infamous legacy...?

[aintforever]

Blair - he killed more people.

[Joensuu]

so then..

Maggie or Blair..

who left the most infamous legacy...?

Good question.

Maggie inherited a mess of a country, took hold of it and shook it virtually limb from limb. She is currently vilified because hundreds of thousands had to suffer unemployment, while her economy rollercoastered and inflation went through the roof. Many will claim that her tough decisions underpin the stability that Blair inherited. However I'd argue that while the unions needed to be stomped on, much of the heavy industry (which has since shown it could still turn a profit) should have been allowed to continue. I believe that her real legacy is yet to come; with the Far East moving ever higher up the value chain (now bettering the US on number of patents issued p.a., and number of doctorates), our tertiary service-based economy is going to come under increasing pressure. Quite simply, if China were to out 'tech' us, what on earth would be be able to sell? I feel we might find ourselves wishing we hadn't closed down all of the heavy industry in such haste.

Blair on the other hand inherited a country looking very healthy. Always a Tory (in red clothing), his first three years were very successful, seeing the introduction of a minimum wage, peace in Northern Ireland (we miss you Mo), and a steadily reducing national debt. Then at in 2000 something changed and Blair morphed into a megalomaniac. Almost overnight the taps on spending were fully opened, followed by further 'investment' via PFI initiatives (AKA, getting future governments to pay more than the going rate for new schools and hospitals (while 'Nu Lab' take the plaudits)). In the following 9 years, government spending increased by c. 133% (some of which obviously inflationary; most of which massively wasteful). Then in 2003, Blair sucked up to Bush, and we were of course led into an illegal and expensive conflict - what did the House of Commons do? Well, spend more time debating fox hunting than Saddam. By the end of 2003 it was clear to all that property prices were stupidly out of control, thankfully in 11 Downing Street the Chancellor buried his head. Financially the country was in an appalling condition, but hey it's the "end of boom and bust" - so why worry eh?

So who messed us up more? Blair's crippling debt vs. Maggie's trashing of the only industries which we could have fallen back on to try to pay it off!

And the moral of our story? Never trust a Tory (whatever colour their party).

[View From The Top]

so then..

 

Maggie or Blair..

 

who left the most infamous legacy...?

 

What an excellent question to pose.

 

It's rather like asking who the best mass murderer was, Hitler or Stalin.

[Johnny Bognor]

Maggie inherited a mess of a country, took hold of it and shook it virtually limb from limb. She is currently vilified because hundreds of thousands had to suffer unemployment, while her economy rollercoastered and inflation went through the roof. Many will claim that her tough decisions underpin the stability that Blair inherited.

 

The country was virtually bankrupt and tough action was the only way out. This did mean unemployment, but we have rising unemployment now(which could reach 3 million) without any tough action. My point is that all the major economies went into recession in the early and late 80's and there would have been major unemployment anyway.

However I'd argue that while the unions needed to be stomped on, much of the heavy industry (which has since shown it could still turn a profit) should have been allowed to continue.

 

How many times do I have to post the fact that manufacturings share of GDP fell at a lower rate than before her 'reign' and since she went.

 

In addition to this, every single major western economy (Including USA, Germany and France) has seen mass de-industrialisation since the early 70's. This cannot be pinned on MT alone.

 

 

Blair on the other hand inherited a country looking very healthy. Always a Tory (in red clothing), his first three years were very successful, seeing the introduction of a minimum wage,

 

I believe that her real legacy is yet to come; with the Far East moving ever higher up the value chain (now bettering the US on number of patents issued p.a., and number of doctorates), our tertiary service-based economy is going to come under increasing pressure. Quite simply, if China were to out 'tech' us, what on earth would be be able to sell? I feel we might find ourselves wishing we hadn't closed down all of the heavy industry in such haste

 

It is because of de-industrialisation that the minimum wage was possible. If we had any industry of note, there is absolutely no way we could have introduced the minimum wage as we would have handed our competitive advantage straight to China, where they get paid less in a day than a min wager earns in an hour. The simple fact of the matter is that the Chinese and Asians can make things for much less than we can due to our labour costs and legislation.

 

There is no money to be made in making things anymore (unless it is highly specialist)

 

The only way forward is to invest in IP. We need to nurture designers, inventors and entrepreneurs. Look at Dyson, he has revolutionised vacuum cleaning which has created immense wealth for UK PLC.

 

So lets scrap tuition fees on any degree course that can be of use to UK PLC (design, engineering and the like) and create a nation of inventors. I doubt many Chinese would be doing courses on Outer Mongolian Jazz in the 16th Century

[Deano6]

Let's face it, it wasn't the war but the banking industry which ruined the country...and that was essentially feck all to do with TB.

[Rattlehead]

Pikeys have ruined the country.

[Wade Garrett]

The country was virtually bankrupt and tough action was the only way out. This did mean unemployment, but we have rising unemployment now(which could reach 3 million) without any tough action. My point is that all the major economies went into recession in the early and late 80's and there would have been major unemployment anyway.

[/font][/color]

 

 

How many times do I have to post the fact that manufacturings share of GDP fell at a lower rate than before her 'reign' and since she went.

 

In addition to this, every single major western economy (Including USA, Germany and France) has seen mass de-industrialisation since the early 70's. This cannot be pinned on MT alone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is because of de-industrialisation that the minimum wage was possible. If we had any industry of note, there is absolutely no way we could have introduced the minimum wage as we would have handed our competitive advantage straight to China, where they get paid less in a day than a min wager earns in an hour. The simple fact of the matter is that the Chinese and Asians can make things for much less than we can due to our labour costs and legislation.

 

There is no money to be made in making things anymore (unless it is highly specialist)

 

The only way forward is to invest in IP. We need to nurture designers, inventors and entrepreneurs. Look at Dyson, he has revolutionised vacuum cleaning which has created immense wealth for UK PLC.

 

So lets scrap tuition fees on any degree course that can be of use to UK PLC (design, engineering and the like) and create a nation of inventors. I doubt many Chinese would be doing courses on Outer Mongolian Jazz in the 16th Century

 

Is that the same Dyson who outsourced production of his vacuum cleaners from the UK to the sweatshops of the far east? It would be nice if we expanded our manufacturing base and increased our exports.

[Johnny Bognor]

Is that the same Dyson who outsourced production of his vacuum cleaners from the UK to the sweatshops of the far east? It would be nice if we expanded our manufacturing base and increased our exports.

 

 

In a global economy, all businesses have to be competitive - we are not competitive unless it is highly specialised manufacturing (where specific expertise is required). Assembling vacuum cleaners is at best semi-skilled. If Dyson is to compete in global markets, manufacturing has to go where it costs significantly less - if it doesn't, then someone else will come in and take the market. Being a global market leader means that 1200 people are still employed in design, marketing, finance and administration functions whilst the profits of such endeavours still flow into UK PLC, helping to prop up the welfare state.

 

There is still a place for highly skilled manufacturing, but unskilled labour-intensive manufacturing is dead and buried - the minimum wage and employment legislation are the final nails in the coffin.

 

If you take a look at the masters of manufacturing - the Germans - Mercedes are now built in South Africa and Bosch products are all made in Poland. These are just the famous examples as there are many more and many of the components in German 'assembled' products are made in China.

 

Therefore, the future for us is in the design and creation of new technologies and products, because without this, there isn't much left outside the services sector. A government of either persuasion should be focusing on educating and creating highly skilled workforce and ditching courses such as Flower Arranging in Roman Britain.

 

As for sweatshops of the far east, have you checked the labels of your clothing? Or are you a real socialist who makes his own clothing out of dried grass and leaves?

[Wade Garrett]

In a global economy, all businesses have to be competitive - we are not competitive unless it is highly specialised manufacturing (where specific expertise is required). Assembling vacuum cleaners is at best semi-skilled. If Dyson is to compete in global markets, manufacturing has to go where it costs significantly less - if it doesn't, then someone else will come in and take the market. Being a global market leader means that 1200 people are still employed in design, marketing, finance and administration functions whilst the profits of such endeavours still flow into UK PLC, helping to prop up the welfare state.

 

There is still a place for highly skilled manufacturing, but unskilled labour-intensive manufacturing is dead and buried - the minimum wage and employment legislation are the final nails in the coffin.

 

If you take a look at the masters of manufacturing - the Germans - Mercedes are now built in South Africa and Bosch products are all made in Poland. These are just the famous examples as there are many more and many of the components in German 'assembled' products are made in China.

 

Therefore, the future for us is in the design and creation of new technologies and products, because without this, there isn't much left outside the services sector. A government of either persuasion should be focusing on educating and creating highly skilled workforce and ditching courses such as Flower Arranging in Roman Britain.

 

As for sweatshops of the far east, have you checked the labels of your clothing? Or are you a real socialist who makes his own clothing out of dried grass and leaves?

 

The 'way forward' is not as simplistic as you say. Yes, we should be encouraging the inventors and entrepreneurs, but we should also be encouraging them, through the tax system and other incentives, to manufacture in this country. Yes, it is cheaper to manufacture in the far east, but it becomes a lot more expensive in shipping costs to get your goods to the established markets of Europe and North America.

 

Your last paragraph makes you sound like a bit of a c*nt.

[Johnny Bognor]

The 'way forward' is not as simplistic as you say. Yes, we should be encouraging the inventors and entrepreneurs, but we should also be encouraging them, through the tax system and other incentives, to manufacture in this country. Yes, it is cheaper to manufacture in the far east, but it becomes a lot more expensive in shipping costs to get your goods to the established markets of Europe and North America.

 

Your last paragraph makes you sound like a bit of a c*nt.

 

But money is not made in making things, it is in creating and selling things. I agree with minimum wage and employee legislation, but recognise that it severely impacts our ability to produce labour intensive products.

 

As for my last paragraph, it might make me sound like a ****, but there is a valid point in there. You want your cheap products as a consumer and to make these affordable, they have to be manufactured overseas. If they were manufactured here, they would be too expensive for you to buy them and too expensive to export them. In this scenario, we wouldn't be manufacturing them for very long.

[sotonjoe]

The working class will knock maggie forever, and those who blossomed under her reign will love her. You won't see a reasoned debate on the subject, that's for sure.

 

Blair's election was an inevitability, but if you look at the state of the bloody place now, you can't say he has improved the country on all counts.

[Wade Garrett]

But money is not made in making things, it is in creating and selling things. I agree with minimum wage and employee legislation, but recognise that it severely impacts our ability to produce labour intensive products.

 

As for my last paragraph, it might make me sound like a ****, but there is a valid point in there. You want your cheap products as a consumer and to make these affordable, they have to be manufactured overseas. If they were manufactured here, they would be too expensive for you to buy them and too expensive to export them. In this scenario, we wouldn't be manufacturing them for very long.

 

You didn't read my post very well. If our own were incentivised to manufacture here they may well think twice about moving their production overseas. Governments would be well served by handing out tax-breaks and other incentives in return for the unemployment bill going down.

 

I can assure you it is much more expensive to ship to Europe from the far-east than it would be to pop goods over the channel. These shipping costs will rise in years to come as the container-shipping industry recovers, as it surely will. Shippers will be looking to recoup the billions they are currently losing.