Originally Posted by
Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult
C, you've just basically ignored all my data and just said "Whatevs, it's always bad." and tried to get out of it by switching from the Lab party's post-war economic record to the record of soi disant socialist regimes.
Firstly, every Lab govt believed in a mixed market economy so weren't socialist.
Secondly, every govt was led by the right of the party and was brought down by the left for not being lefty enough,
Atlee brought down over prescription charges in 1951, Wilson by In Place of Strife Union reform in 1970, Callaghan by the Winter of Discontent in 1979, and Blair by Brown in 2007.
Thus we can rightly consider that those govts were centre-lefties, not socialists, and this explains why, other than intl shocks over which they had no control (add in the breakdown of Bretton Woods that screwed Heath) they basically left the economy is as good a state as they found it.
It's one thing to say I'm a Tory and I don't like Labour.
It's another to try and rewrite economic history, as B did, or to try and say that they must be wrong'uns simply because real socialist regimes are.
Most of the time, the party's been run by Oxbridge public school boys. That's not exactly Maduro or Castro, is it? {Indeed, that one of the issues of my wing of the party. We'd rather have an Oxbridge public school boy [or girl] than Jez. But ssshhh, don't tell anyone as we're not meant to say this publicly.}
Reply With Quote