Battle of the (lack of) political leadership - 1992 v 2013?

[Tangled up in Blue]

It is also worth considering how much of changing voter share is actually due to a failure to get out the vote. I wonder how many people actually change their vote from election to election as opposed to those who simply aren't motivated to vote for their preferred choice?

IIRC, from the days when I used to study politics,the figure was rarely higher than 25%, except for by-elections.

 

[OldBlueLady]

In your opinion.

And that's what it's all about, individual opinions.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

And that's what it's all about, individual opinions.

Ah but it's a fact that Thatcher will burn in hell.:winking:

 

[Berrichonne shrimper]

Ah but it's a fact that Thatcher will burn in hell.:winking:

And lucky old you wont because you are so full of love and light.

 

[Benfleet A1]

Worst three for me would have to be

Heath
Wilson
Thorpe

Not worth a cold cup of sick the lot of em.

 

[Hotman]

Thatcher has to be the worst PM in my lifetime.

You truly are a bell.

The post is about leadership - now regardless of whether you personally like the leader, there is no doubt that Thatcher was a formidable leader. Cameron, Clegg, Milliband would all love to have her leadership skills.

Just because she called out you union pricks, doesn't make her 'the worst pm' (of which there are several more candidates I'd wager, Gordon Brown being one - who would also love to have her leadership skills...)

I suppose you'll argue this by either deflecting the point in hand, or digging out a Guardian quote that of course is 100% correct and representative of a balanced viewpoint...:'(

#barnabluegetsitwrongyetagain

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

You truly are a bell.

The post is about leadership - now regardless of whether you personally like the leader, there is no doubt that Thatcher was a formidable leader. Cameron, Clegg, Milliband would all love to have her leadership skills.

Just because she called out you union pricks, doesn't make her 'the worst pm' (of which there are several more candidates I'd wager, Gordon Brown being one - who would also love to have her leadership skills...)

I suppose you'll argue this by either deflecting the point in hand, or digging out a Guardian quote that of course is 100% correct and representative of a balanced viewpoint...:'(

#barnabluegetsitwrongyetagain

she did have the party leadership taken away from her by the party that she was leader of don't forget

 

[Hotman]

Everyone has a best before date - even Alex Ferguson

 

[londonblue]

I don't know of anybody claiming that newspapers do not influence the opinions of a single person.

My early point was in response to Barna saying that the general perception of Ed Miliband (as evidenced by his poll ratings) was entirely explained by the press he gets. It was not possible in Barna's mind for anyone to form an opinion of Mr Miliband beyond the prism of the "right wing press." Likewise the question time participant last night who considered the general mood of euroscepticism to be entirely prompted and orchestrated by the "right wing press".

People are obviously influenced by what they read. I would suggest that confirmation bias is common with any news story, but no doubt some people do change their vote based on newspaper reports. The notion that there is some kind of co-ordinated conspiracy to brain wash the thick masses (an argument implied frequently by the left) is plainly nonsense.

It is also worth considering how much of changing voter share is actually due to a failure to get out the vote. I wonder how many people actually change their vote from election to election as opposed to those who simply aren't motivated to vote for their preferred choice?

Thanks for giving me a summary (in long form!) of your original post, but if you look at my original post, it was in response to superblue24, not you!

 

[londonblue]

And that's what it's all about, individual opinions.

Correct, but a comment such as this:

Say what you want about Cameron and his party, but he is a better leader than Miliband could ever hope to be

Implies something is fact when it plainly isn't.

 

[applelover]

Cameron is a fine orator, but appears to be an abysmal leader. Firstly he couldn't win an election against Brown who was clueless to an extreme that we will never see the like of again. Secondly as time has passed it is clear that people don't trust him. Not even die hard Tory voters (like superblue and Neil 'doesn't known the price of a pint of milk' F trust him. The perception that he is insincere is his biggest problem. A good leader doesn't allow this to happen, when it does it is curtains. Whatever you think about Thatcher she was not viewed as insincere.

 

[MK Shrimper]

Everyone has a best before date - even Alex Ferguson

That was his choice to retire. Thatcher was ousted by the people who used to stick their tongues up her jacksy.

It makes me laugh when people crow on about "greedy unions" when all Thatcher & co did was change that around to make the bankers & money men greedy. They led us to the **** financial state we're in today, not Scargill & co.

 

[OldBlueLady]

That was his choice to retire. Thatcher was ousted by the people who used to stick her tongue up her jacksy.

Maggie was a lot of things, but I wasn't aware she was a contortionist! :stunned:

 

[MK Shrimper]

Maggie was a lot of things, but I wasn't aware she was a contortionist! :stunned:

Well she was in a circus of a Government :winking: Post amended!

 

[superblue24]

That was his choice to retire. Thatcher was ousted by the people who used to stick their tongues up her jacksy.

It makes me laugh when people crow on about "greedy unions" when all Thatcher & co did was change that around to make the bankers & money men greedy. They led us to the **** financial state we're in today, not Scargill & co.

Dear oh dear. You're comparing two industries that are not comparable. The bankers work in the private sector (for the most part) and the miners were working in the public sector. There was nothing greedy about acknowledging it was costing the government more to pay the miners than what was being earned through coal sales. The government were prepared to negotiate with the miners, but Scargill, fool that he is, decided to stand firm and shot the golden goose for so many workers with families.

Additionally, they did NOT lead us to the financial state we are in today. Under Thatcher the country recovered and reversed the post-war decline and led us into an economic boom. Despite what you have clearly misread about Thatcher, she came from a Working Class background and believed in supporting the "working man" and was against those who chose to sit about on strike and hold the country to ransom. She also removed the "Toffs" from the City. If you look at any pre-eighties footage, you'll see that most people working in the City donned a bowler hat and cane. She allowed International firms into the City thus creating jobs for the Essex\Kent\Hampshire etc masses. Doubtful you'd have a job today without all the commuters (leading to trains) that pass through the line to London today.

She also negotiated an extremely lucrative rebate from the EU for the UK, billions. The main reason being that we were paying so much into the EU and that was being spent mainly (80% at the time) on farming! Blair gave it straight back when he came into office.

Anyway, have a red blob for being a thickie.

 

[MK Shrimper]

Dear oh dear. You're comparing two industries that are not comparable. The bankers work in the private sector (for the most part) and the miners were working in the public sector. There was nothing greedy about acknowledging it was costing the government more to pay the miners than what was being earned through coal sales. The government were prepared to negotiate with the miners, but Scargill, fool that he is, decided to stand firm and shot the golden goose for so many workers with families.

Additionally, they did NOT lead us to the financial state we are in today. Under Thatcher the country recovered and reversed the post-war decline and led us into an economic boom. Despite what you have clearly misread about Thatcher, she came from a Working Class background and believed in supporting the "working man" and was against those who chose to sit about on strike and hold the country to ransom. She also removed the "Toffs" from the City. If you look at any pre-eighties footage, you'll see that most people working in the City donned a bowler hat and cane. She allowed International firms into the City thus creating jobs for the Essex\Kent\Hampshire etc masses. Doubtful you'd have a job today without all the commuters (leading to trains) that pass through the line to London today.

She also negotiated an extremely lucrative rebate from the EU for the UK, billions. The main reason being that we were paying so much into the EU and that was being spent mainly (80% at the time) on farming! Blair gave it straight back when he came into office.

Anyway, have a red blob for being a thickie.

There's so much to pull apart in your post but I can't be arsed. We all know you're one of her toadies who can see no wrong in a woman who had no compunction in destroying millions of peoples lives and sat down with dictators like Pinochet. I would neg you back for making wild assumptions on where railway growth is going, but I'm not a petty man.

 

[londonblue]

Cameron is a fine orator, but appears to be an abysmal leader. Firstly he couldn't win an election against Brown who was clueless to an extreme that we will never see the like of again. Secondly as time has passed it is clear that people don't trust him. Not even die hard Tory voters (like superblue and Neil 'doesn't known the price of a pint of milk' F trust him. The perception that he is insincere is his biggest problem. A good leader doesn't allow this to happen, when it does it is curtains. Whatever you think about Thatcher she was not viewed as insincere.

The problem he has is just the amount of lies and untruths he comes out with. I think he's being found out. A classic example was at PMQs a few months back when he simply didn't understand the difference between budget debt and deficit. Apparently he ended up being invited to the treasury for an economics lesson to make sure he got it right next time.

 

[Neil_F]

A classic example was at PMQs a few months back when he simply didn't understand the difference between budget debt and deficit..

I'm not surprised. Most MPs don't know the first thing about economics and regularly confuse these two concepts.

Some of it is also tactical. All three parties have talked about "wiping the slate clean" when asked about the deficit. They know that this is interpreted as paying back debt, which it isn't.

There was a poll conducted earlier this year that found only 6% of the public realise that debt is increasing.

 

[londonblue]

I'm not surprised. Most MPs don't know the first thing about economics and regularly confuse these two concepts.

Some of it is also tactical. All three parties have talked about "wiping the slate clean" when asked about the deficit. They know that this is interpreted as paying back debt, which it isn't.

There was a poll conducted earlier this year that found only 6% of the public realise that debt is increasing.

Maybe so, but to make bold statements in PMQs about deficit and debt, and then be called to the treasury for an economics lesson is rather on the embarrassing side. No wonder they tried to keep it quiet.

 

[Neil_F]

and then be called to the treasury for an economics lesson...

Was he actually though? I can't believe that the Treasury can summon the Prime Minister and give him a dressing down.

The UK Statistics Authority did issue a rebuke over his use of "deficit" and "debt". Are you not suggesting that the PM was dishonest rather than ignorant of the difference?