The General Election Thread

[Bodicoteblue]

People are always referring to labour selling off the gold reserves at way below its supposed market value, but never seem to want to mention the Tories flogging off the gas , water , electricity and most recently the Royal Mail for spectacular undervaluations.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

People are always referring to labour selling off the gold reserves at way below its supposed market value, but never seem to want to mention the Tories flogging off the gas , water , electricity and most recently the Royal Mail for spectacular undervaluations.

That's a good point.

 

[law74]

People are always referring to labour selling off the gold reserves at way below its supposed market value, but never seem to want to mention the Tories flogging off the gas , water , electricity and most recently the Royal Mail for spectacular undervaluations.

Was the reprivatisation of the East Coast Mainline after contributing £1billion to the public purse not after the sale at a grossly undervalued price of Royal Mail?

 

[denislawsbackheel]

Where do we start?

Entered an illegal war after lying to the House and population about Iraqs WMDs, later killing a whistleblower.
Presided over the greatest post war reduction in manufacturing.
Sold the Gold reserves for a record real time low to buy off the electorate with increased public spending
Spent £800m on the Millenium Dome
Ran a deficit whilst enjoying a period of Tory started growth (against Keynes who they supposedly subscribe to)
Fucked the NHS up with ridiculous PFIs
Allowed the largest immigration in 1000 years, 3m in 13 years
Saw unemployment rise over their administration (again)
Gave away the UK rebate costing £9bn

The Iraq war I'll give you but that was Blair's personal desire to please George Bush, rather than party policy. Had it been Cameron, I've no doubt the outcome would have been the same.

Manufacturing output actually reached a record high in 2007, according to the ONS, so that one's bollox.

Holding gold reserves has no value as far as a government is concerned. It's a speculative asset and in fact the sale of such reserves was restricted by international agreement after that, as our sale drove the price down, not up. The subsequent rise was largely due to the knowledge that a large scale sale couldn't happen, except maybe under extraordinary circumstances. There was therefore virtually no downside risk in buying gold from then on.

The Millenium Dome was a crock of shit but it was originally the idea of John Major's government but was expanded by Blair's. The money came from the National Lottery (£600m) and sale of tickets (£190m) so not really public funds.

The money from the NHS had to come from somewhere. It either had to be borrowed or privately financed. Given that you said Labour borrowed too much, you can't have it both ways.

Unemployment had fallen from its peak in 1997, when Labour took power, up to 2008. Obviously the recession increased it. It's never come near the levels seen under the Thatcher government. So if you want to get on your high horse about unemployment, that's when the worst damage was done.

Under Labour, UK net borrowing reached a peak of 3.5% of GDP in 2004/5 prior to the recession. 2014/15 it will be something like 5.5% and is estimated to be be 4.2% in the current fiscal year. So if borrowing was out of control under a fiscally irresponsible Labour administration, how would you class it now, when it's supposedly under control?

I'm not particularly pro-European but let's not forget which party negotiated our original entry and signed the disastrous Maastricht treaty.

You can't speculate on whether another leader would be totally dishonest. Cameron didn't take us into an unjust war and costs many lives........... Blair did

Cameron bombed the fuck out of Libya and had a hissy fit when Parliament stopped him going in to Syria.

 

[Manchester_lalala]

Just voted ukip. Fuck em.

 

[denislawsbackheel]

People are always referring to labour selling off the gold reserves at way below its supposed market value, but never seem to want to mention the Tories flogging off the gas , water , electricity and most recently the Royal Mail for spectacular undervaluations.

The Tory fan Bois on here could do with taking their heads out of their arses and read this about Brown and the sale of Gold.
From The Times, a Murdoch Tory supporting rag too.

Ed Miliband had a tough time on Question Time last week. “This country did suffer because Gordon Brown sold gold to prop up the social services,” an irate questioner said.
It’s odd that Mr Miliband had no prepared answer. Perhaps he didn’t recall the Conservative poster from 2010, depicting Mr Brown saying: “I lost £6 billion selling off Britain’s gold. Vote for me.”
It’s a potent image of recklessness, but it’s wrong. Mr Brown’s decision in 1999 to sell part of Britain’s gold reserves was prudent. Though Mr Miliband won’t defend him, I will.
Between 1999 and 2002, the Bank of England sold about 395 tonnes of gold. This represented just over 55 per cent of its gold reserves. The average price realised was slightly more than $275 per troy ounce and the proceeds amounted to £3.5 billion.
Then the gold price went up. And up. It peaked at $1,921 an ounce in 2011. Mr Brown, it turned out, had sold at the bottom of the market. Doesn’t that prove his incompetence?
No. As Mr Miliband might have pointed out, Mr Brown did not sell gold to finance spending, he did it to diversify the reserves, of which more than 40 per cent were held in gold. The proceeds weren’t frittered away on gin and lottery tickets. They were invested in foreign currency assets, in a proportion of 40 per cent dollars, 40 per cent euros and 20 per cent yen. That was sound financial management.
The traditional case for holding gold is that it is a hedge against inflation and a store of value. Both claims are contentious and I’d call them superstitions; demand for gold may be driven by things that have nothing to do with the wider economy, such as dentistry. Even if you’re swayed by them, though, they don’t imply that you should allocate 40 per cent of a portfolio to gold.
How much an asset is really worth (its “intrinsic value”, in the jargon) depends on the cash that it will generate: interest, dividends or (for property) rental income. Investors who manage long-term funds, such as pension and life funds, put money in a range of assets. Their asset allocation aims to maximise expected returns for a given level of portfolio risk. The returns will depend on how much cash the chosen assets will pay out over the long term. Gold might be useful as a hedge, but it pays nothing; it just sits in the vault.
Hence Mr Brown’s decision. Unlike gold, the Bank’s foreign currency assets are interest-bearing. Eddie George, then governor of the Bank, argued in 1999 that “as a portfolio decision, it is perfectly sensible”. And he was right.
Yes, the Bank could have sold gold for a higher price by waiting — that’s the benefit of hindsight — but it is inappropriate for a central bank to be, in effect, taking a punt on commodity prices. Revealingly, George Osborne never instructed the Bank to sell dollars and euros and buy gold. If he’d done so, he would have been following the example of Hugo Chávez, who, as president of Venezuela after the global banking crisis of 2007 to 2009, made a huge bet on gold to free his country from “the dictatorship of the dollar”. The central bank of Venezuela stockpiled 70 per cent of its reserves in gold, a position that it’s now trying to unwind with gold prices around a third lower than their 2011 peak. With the domestic economy collapsing, Venezuela desperately needs foreign currency. Last week, the central bank sold $1 billion of its gold reserves through Citibank, that well-known revolutionary institution.
It’s the task of government and central bankers to deliver economic and financial stability so that consumers, businesses and investors can afford to take long-term decisions. Punting on gold has no place in that approach. Politicians of all parties should belatedly acknowledge that Mr Brown got that right.

 

[denislawsbackheel]

I'm no fan of Labour but how did they destroy the country morally?

And what damage did they do between 1997 & 2010? Up to 2008 it was a period of uninterrupted growth.

It constantly both amazes and sickens me how much lying shit the right-wing red-tops get away with peddling.

Where do we start?

Entered an illegal war after lying to the House and population about Iraqs WMDs,Lie later killing a whistleblower. Lie
Presided over the greatest post war reduction in manufacturing.
Sold the Gold reserves for a record real time low to buy off the electorate with increased public spendingLie
Spent £800m on the Millenium Dome
Ran a deficit whilst enjoying a period of Tory started growth (against Keynes who they supposedly subscribe to)
Fucked the NHS up with ridiculous PFIs
Allowed the largest immigration in 1000 years, 3m in 13 years
Saw unemployment rise over their administration (again)
Gave away the UK rebate costing £9bn

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Where do we start?

Entered an illegal war after lying to the House and population about Iraqs WMDs, later killing a whistleblower.
Presided over the greatest post war reduction in manufacturing.
Sold the Gold reserves for a record real time low to buy off the electorate with increased public spending
Spent £800m on the Millenium Dome
Ran a deficit whilst enjoying a period of Tory started growth (against Keynes who they supposedly subscribe to)
Fucked the NHS up with ridiculous PFIs
Allowed the largest immigration in 1000 years, 3m in 13 years
Saw unemployment rise over their administration (again)
Gave away the UK rebate costing £9bn

The Iraq war I'll give you but that was Blair's personal desire to please George Bush, rather than party policy. Had it been Cameron, I've no doubt the outcome would have been the same.

Manufacturing output actually reached a record high in 2007, according to the ONS, so that one's bollox.

Holding gold reserves has no value as far as a government is concerned. It's a speculative asset and in fact the sale of such reserves was restricted by international agreement after that, as our sale drove the price down, not up. The subsequent rise was largely due to the knowledge that a large scale sale couldn't happen, except maybe under extraordinary circumstances. There was therefore virtually no downside risk in buying gold from then on.

The Millenium Dome was a crock of shit but it was originally the idea of John Major's government but was expanded by Blair's. The money came from the National Lottery (£600m) and sale of tickets (£190m) so not really public funds.

The money from the NHS had to come from somewhere. It either had to be borrowed or privately financed. Given that you said Labour borrowed too much, you can't have it both ways.

Unemployment had fallen from its peak in 1997, when Labour took power, up to 2008. Obviously the recession increased it. It's never come near the levels seen under the Thatcher government. So if you want to get on your high horse about unemployment, that's when the worst damage was done.

Under Labour, UK net borrowing reached a peak of 3.5% of GDP in 2004/5 prior to the recession. 2014/15 it will be something like 5.5% and is estimated to be be 4.2% in the current fiscal year. So if borrowing was out of control under a fiscally irresponsible Labour administration, how would you class it now, when it's supposedly under control?

I'm not particularly pro-European but let's not forget which party negotiated our original entry and signed the disastrous Maastricht treaty.

You can't speculate on whether another leader would be totally dishonest. Cameron didn't take us into an unjust war and costs many lives........... Blair did

That may be so and in hindsight it was indeed a wicked act but to use that as an excuse never to vote Labour is fucking idiotic and puerile. How about "I'm never voting Tory because of Eden's lies over Suez"? Makes as much sense.

So you'll refuse to ever vote for a party over something that had no or little material impact on this country but would happily vote Tory despite Thatcher ripping the industrial heart out of the North of England? Bizarre.

 

[denislawsbackheel]

I'm no fan of Labour but how did they destroy the country morally?

And what damage did they do between 1997 & 2010? Up to 2008 it was a period of uninterrupted growth.

It constantly both amazes and sickens me how much lying shit the right-wing red-tops get away with peddling.

Where do we start?

Entered an illegal war after lying to the House and population about Iraqs WMDs,Lie later killing a whistleblower. Lie
Presided over the greatest post war reduction in manufacturing.
Sold the Gold reserves for a record real time low to buy off the electorate with increased public spendingLie
Spent £800m on the Millenium Dome
Ran a deficit whilst enjoying a period of Tory started growth (against Keynes who they supposedly subscribe to)
Fucked the NHS up with ridiculous PFIs
Allowed the largest immigration in 1000 years, 3m in 13 years
Saw unemployment rise over their administration (again)
Gave away the UK rebate costing £9bn

 

[mcfc1632]

Where do we start?

Entered an illegal war after lying to the House and population about Iraqs WMDs, later killing a whistleblower.
Presided over the greatest post war reduction in manufacturing.
Sold the Gold reserves for a record real time low to buy off the electorate with increased public spending
Spent £800m on the Millenium Dome
Ran a deficit whilst enjoying a period of Tory started growth (against Keynes who they supposedly subscribe to)
Fucked the NHS up with ridiculous PFIs
Allowed the largest immigration in 1000 years, 3m in 13 years
Saw unemployment rise over their administration (again)
Gave away the UK rebate costing £9bn

The Iraq war I'll give you but that was Blair's personal desire to please George Bush, rather than party policy. Had it been Cameron, I've no doubt the outcome would have been the same.

Manufacturing output actually reached a record high in 2007, according to the ONS, so that one's bollox.

Holding gold reserves has no value as far as a government is concerned. It's a speculative asset and in fact the sale of such reserves was restricted by international agreement after that, as our sale drove the price down, not up. The subsequent rise was largely due to the knowledge that a large scale sale couldn't happen, except maybe under extraordinary circumstances. There was therefore virtually no downside risk in buying gold from then on.

The Millenium Dome was a crock of shit but it was originally the idea of John Major's government but was expanded by Blair's. The money came from the National Lottery (£600m) and sale of tickets (£190m) so not really public funds.

The money from the NHS had to come from somewhere. It either had to be borrowed or privately financed. Given that you said Labour borrowed too much, you can't have it both ways.

Unemployment had fallen from its peak in 1997, when Labour took power, up to 2008. Obviously the recession increased it. It's never come near the levels seen under the Thatcher government. So if you want to get on your high horse about unemployment, that's when the worst damage was done.

Under Labour, UK net borrowing reached a peak of 3.5% of GDP in 2004/5 prior to the recession. 2014/15 it will be something like 5.5% and is estimated to be be 4.2% in the current fiscal year. So if borrowing was out of control under a fiscally irresponsible Labour administration, how would you class it now, when it's supposedly under control?

I'm not particularly pro-European but let's not forget which party negotiated our original entry and signed the disastrous Maastricht treaty.

You can't speculate on whether another leader would be totally dishonest. Cameron didn't take us into an unjust war and costs many lives........... Blair did

Best not to dwell on this subject too much on this thread for fear of distracting it - but I wholeheartedly agree.

I cannot contemplate that there could be any bigger crime than for the leader of the country to lie to the nation, twisting in the wind to get whatever he was seeking to achieve for self-serving reasons - even manufacturing evidence. His actions have cost many lives and £billions

It shows the utter contempt that he had for the citizens of this country and the enormous arrogance of the individual.

So no - I do not think that Cameron would have been so contemptuous of the country or so arrogant and acted in that fashion - but to be fair I do not believe that Milliband or Brown would have acted I that way either.

The disgraceful self-serving behaviour of Blair transcends simple party allegiances.

I think that we should all just roundly condemn the twat that Blair was and is - it is not a us and them (Labour & Conservative etc) issue.

 

[kas_tippler]

The Iraq war I'll give you but that was Blair's personal desire to please George Bush, rather than party policy. Had it been Cameron, I've no doubt the outcome would have been the same.

Manufacturing output actually reached a record high in 2007, according to the ONS, so that one's bollox.

Holding gold reserves has no value as far as a government is concerned. It's a speculative asset and in fact the sale of such reserves was restricted by international agreement after that, as our sale drove the price down, not up. The subsequent rise was largely due to the knowledge that a large scale sale couldn't happen, except maybe under extraordinary circumstances. There was therefore virtually no downside risk in buying gold from then on.

The Millenium Dome was a crock of shit but it was originally the idea of John Major's government but was expanded by Blair's. The money came from the National Lottery (£600m) and sale of tickets (£190m) so not really public funds.

The money from the NHS had to come from somewhere. It either had to be borrowed or privately financed. Given that you said Labour borrowed too much, you can't have it both ways.

Unemployment had fallen from its peak in 1997, when Labour took power, up to 2008. Obviously the recession increased it. It's never come near the levels seen under the Thatcher government. So if you want to get on your high horse about unemployment, that's when the worst damage was done.

Under Labour, UK net borrowing reached a peak of 3.5% of GDP in 2004/5 prior to the recession. 2014/15 it will be something like 5.5% and is estimated to be be 4.2% in the current fiscal year. So if borrowing was out of control under a fiscally irresponsible Labour administration, how would you class it now, when it's supposedly under control?

I'm not particularly pro-European but let's not forget which party negotiated our original entry and signed the disastrous Maastricht treaty.

You can't speculate on whether another leader would be totally dishonest. Cameron didn't take us into an unjust war and costs many lives........... Blair did

Best not to dwell on this subject too much on this thread for fear of distracting it - but I wholeheartedly agree.

I cannot contemplate that there could be any bigger crime than for the leader of the country to lie to the nation, twisting in the wind to get whatever he was seeking to achieve for self-serving reasons - even manufacturing evidence. His actions have cost many lives and £billions

It shows the utter contempt that he had for the citizens of this country and the enormous arrogance of the individual.

So no - I do not think that Cameron would have been so contemptuous of the country or so arrogant and acted in that fashion - but to be fair I do not believe that Milliband or Brown would have acted I that way either.

The disgraceful self-serving behaviour of Blair transcends simple party allegiances.

I think that we should all just roundly condemn the twat that Blair was and is - it is not a us and them (Labour & Conservative etc) issue.

some very good points but Labour did wheel him out to tell us we were too stupid to vote on in a referendum.

 

[SWP's back]

I don't understand this logic.

That says that we used to produce 10 frying pans a week. Now we product 15 frying pans a week. However the total number of objects that people pay for has increased so despite the fact that we're producing more frying pans, it's actually a sign of failure?

What possible way could the computerisation of the UK and the change to a service based industry leading to a higher GDP be a bad thing because the split towards frying pan based economy is now lessened but still growing?

That doesn't make any sense.

Because it's all relative and it's often said that the UK is too reliant on the service sector and our manufacturing base is much smaller than it should be.

And that happened under Thatcher!!!!!!!!!!!

And increased under Labour.

Did you not read the three links?

 

[SWP's back]

Because it's all relative and it's often said that the UK is too reliant on the service sector and our manufacturing base is much smaller than it should be.

And that happened under Thatcher!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually the biggest decline happened in the 1970s under both Wilson and Callaghan who believed the UK produced a better per head capita with the newly discovered north sea oil than manufacturing. And hence the service industry was born.

Hiya buddy. Long time no see. Hope you are well.

 

[SWP's back]

People are always referring to labour selling off the gold reserves at way below its supposed market value, but never seem to want to mention the Tories flogging off the gas , water , electricity and most recently the Royal Mail for spectacular undervaluations.

I think you'll find that's rightly mentioned very often and not many try and defend it.

 

[kas_tippler]

The Iraq war I'll give you but that was Blair's personal desire to please George Bush, rather than party policy. Had it been Cameron, I've no doubt the outcome would have been the same.

Manufacturing output actually reached a record high in 2007, according to the ONS, so that one's bollox.

Holding gold reserves has no value as far as a government is concerned. It's a speculative asset and in fact the sale of such reserves was restricted by international agreement after that, as our sale drove the price down, not up. The subsequent rise was largely due to the knowledge that a large scale sale couldn't happen, except maybe under extraordinary circumstances. There was therefore virtually no downside risk in buying gold from then on.

The Millenium Dome was a crock of shit but it was originally the idea of John Major's government but was expanded by Blair's. The money came from the National Lottery (£600m) and sale of tickets (£190m) so not really public funds.

The money from the NHS had to come from somewhere. It either had to be borrowed or privately financed. Given that you said Labour borrowed too much, you can't have it both ways.

Unemployment had fallen from its peak in 1997, when Labour took power, up to 2008. Obviously the recession increased it. It's never come near the levels seen under the Thatcher government. So if you want to get on your high horse about unemployment, that's when the worst damage was done.

Under Labour, UK net borrowing reached a peak of 3.5% of GDP in 2004/5 prior to the recession. 2014/15 it will be something like 5.5% and is estimated to be be 4.2% in the current fiscal year. So if borrowing was out of control under a fiscally irresponsible Labour administration, how would you class it now, when it's supposedly under control?

I'm not particularly pro-European but let's not forget which party negotiated our original entry and signed the disastrous Maastricht treaty.

You can't speculate on whether another leader would be totally dishonest. Cameron didn't take us into an unjust war and costs many lives........... Blair did

That may be so and in hindsight it was indeed a wicked act but to use that as an excuse never to vote Labour is fucking idiotic and puerile. How about "I'm never voting Tory because of Eden's lies over Suez"? Makes as much sense.

So you'll refuse to ever vote for a party over something that had no or little material impact on this country but would happily vote Tory despite Thatcher ripping the industrial heart out of the North of England? Bizarre.

the ramifications of the Iraq war are still being felt today and will be still be felt for decades to come. The UK in the 1970s was a grim and dark place, 3 day week, continuous strikes and on the edge of bankruptcy. Thatcher did have her faults but she took the nation by the scruffy of its neck and got things moving.
The reticence of your non replies have not gone unnoticed.

 

[SWP's back]

And what damage did they do between 1997 & 2010? Up to 2008 it was a period of uninterrupted growth.

It constantly both amazes and sickens me how much lying shit the right-wing red-tops get away with peddling.

Where do we start?

Entered an illegal war after lying to the House and population about Iraqs WMDs,Lie later killing a whistleblower. Lie
Presided over the greatest post war reduction in manufacturing.
Sold the Gold reserves for a record real time low to buy off the electorate with increased public spendingLie
Spent £800m on the Millenium Dome
Ran a deficit whilst enjoying a period of Tory started growth (against Keynes who they supposedly subscribe to)
Fucked the NHS up with ridiculous PFIs
Allowed the largest immigration in 1000 years, 3m in 13 years
Saw unemployment rise over their administration (again)
Gave away the UK rebate costing £9bn

Just read your shite regarding the sale of the gold so let's ignore that. That's one commentator and I totally disagree with it. Talking about modern portfolio theory and then extrapolating that to Brown is ridiculous.

As for the other two "lies", you're defending the war in Iraq and the death of David Kelly?

Pmsl. You'd argue blue was fucking red.

Having said that, it's good you agree with the rest of Labour's fuck ups.

 

[cibaman]

The decision to go to war with Iraq was wrong but I can understand why it was taken. The bigger crime for me was the complete lack of preparation for the aftermath.

 

[The perfect fumble]

You can't speculate on whether another leader would be totally dishonest. Cameron didn't take us into an unjust war and costs many lives........... Blair did

That may be so and in hindsight it was indeed a wicked act but to use that as an excuse never to vote Labour is fucking idiotic and puerile. How about "I'm never voting Tory because of Eden's lies over Suez"? Makes as much sense.

So you'll refuse to ever vote for a party over something that had no or little material impact on this country but would happily vote Tory despite Thatcher ripping the industrial heart out of the North of England? Bizarre.

the ramifications of the Iraq war are still being felt today and will be still be felt for decades to come. The UK in the 1970s was a grim and dark place, 3 day week, continuous strikes and on the edge of bankruptcy. Thatcher did have her faults but she took the nation by the scruffy of its neck and got things moving.
The reticence of your non replies have not gone unnoticed.

Rubbish, the 70's were great...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/1976-britians-best-ever-year-2070469

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/3337143/Remember-1976-Britains-best-ever-year.html

 

[Bluemanc100]

The Iraq war I'll give you but that was Blair's personal desire to please George Bush, rather than party policy. Had it been Cameron, I've no doubt the outcome would have been the same.

Manufacturing output actually reached a record high in 2007, according to the ONS, so that one's bollox.

Holding gold reserves has no value as far as a government is concerned. It's a speculative asset and in fact the sale of such reserves was restricted by international agreement after that, as our sale drove the price down, not up. The subsequent rise was largely due to the knowledge that a large scale sale couldn't happen, except maybe under extraordinary circumstances. There was therefore virtually no downside risk in buying gold from then on.

The Millenium Dome was a crock of shit but it was originally the idea of John Major's government but was expanded by Blair's. The money came from the National Lottery (£600m) and sale of tickets (£190m) so not really public funds.

The money from the NHS had to come from somewhere. It either had to be borrowed or privately financed. Given that you said Labour borrowed too much, you can't have it both ways.

Unemployment had fallen from its peak in 1997, when Labour took power, up to 2008. Obviously the recession increased it. It's never come near the levels seen under the Thatcher government. So if you want to get on your high horse about unemployment, that's when the worst damage was done.

Under Labour, UK net borrowing reached a peak of 3.5% of GDP in 2004/5 prior to the recession. 2014/15 it will be something like 5.5% and is estimated to be be 4.2% in the current fiscal year. So if borrowing was out of control under a fiscally irresponsible Labour administration, how would you class it now, when it's supposedly under control?

I'm not particularly pro-European but let's not forget which party negotiated our original entry and signed the disastrous Maastricht treaty.

You can't speculate on whether another leader would be totally dishonest. Cameron didn't take us into an unjust war and costs many lives........... Blair did

That may be so and in hindsight it was indeed a wicked act but to use that as an excuse never to vote Labour is fucking idiotic and puerile. How about "I'm never voting Tory because of Eden's lies over Suez"? Makes as much sense.

So you'll refuse to ever vote for a party over something that had no or little material impact on this country but would happily vote Tory despite Thatcher ripping the industrial heart out of the North of England? Bizarre.

who is using is as an excuse not to vote Labour?

 

[kas_tippler]

That may be so and in hindsight it was indeed a wicked act but to use that as an excuse never to vote Labour is fucking idiotic and puerile. How about "I'm never voting Tory because of Eden's lies over Suez"? Makes as much sense.

So you'll refuse to ever vote for a party over something that had no or little material impact on this country but would happily vote Tory despite Thatcher ripping the industrial heart out of the North of England? Bizarre.

the ramifications of the Iraq war are still being felt today and will be still be felt for decades to come. The UK in the 1970s was a grim and dark place, 3 day week, continuous strikes and on the edge of bankruptcy. Thatcher did have her faults but she took the nation by the scruffy of its neck and got things moving.
The reticence of your non replies have not gone unnoticed.

Rubbish, the 70's were great...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/1976-britians-best-ever-year-2070469

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/3337143/Remember-1976-Britains-best-ever-year.html

I beg to differ, I hated it!