• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

REFERENDUM RESULTS AND DISCUSSION THREAD

Parkins left foot said:
Well I fall into that age range & doubt that I had any real influence during that period - would have thought that it was more people born 10 - 25 yrs earlier
Click to expand...

Pretty sure the City would have been dominated by people in their 30s and 40s, like it is now.
 
But if you look at it, May and Cameron have presided over a govt that is as poor as Callaghan. The difference now is there is opposition to it politically and history will look at the weakest opposition in 40 years with justified criticism. Blair had 10 years to undo Thatchers legacy and did not do it, quite the opposite in fact.
 
leedswolf said:
Although we were eligible to cast our vote at the ballot box and determine the sociopolitical direction of the country.
Click to expand...

Individual votes change little - suspect that the average age of MP's, who had the option of choosing a different path & making it happen, at that time would have been somewhat older
 
Parkins left foot said:
Wouldn't disagree with that, but their focus would have been on 'load's of money' not moulding the world to their vision
Click to expand...

It's the decade where that industry became the most integral to the UK's economic prosperity rather than manufacturing, still is now as well. Which helps virtually no-one north of Watford or west of Reading.
 
Parkins left foot said:
Individual votes change little - suspect that the average age of MP's, who had the option of choosing a different path & making it happen, at that time would have been somewhat older
Click to expand...
Block votes do though. I became a Union Rep and then an Executive member and representative on Stafford TUC in my early 20s.
 
Cyber-_-man said:
But if you look at it, May and Cameron have presided over a govt that is as poor as Callaghan. The difference now is there is opposition to it politically and history will look at the weakest opposition in 40 years with justified criticism. Blair had 10 years to undo Thatchers legacy and did not do it, quite the opposite in fact.
Click to expand...
Blair was a Thatcherite.
 
leedswolf said:
Blair was a Thatcherite.
Click to expand...

The defence rests. We are where we are because of 30 years of selfish govt, based on lower taxes and that has led us to where we are now.
To take it back to the original point , it is harsh to blame that on a generation 60 years plus when those in power red or blue did nothing to address what was clearly , a direction the UK is going. The political compass thread shows how fasr, if it's to believed, many of us are from the parties we voted for . we would have a green govt if we followed that.
 
Thatcherite voters don't place their cross there by accident and they don't read Thatcherite papers inadvertently either. I don't think you can let that generation (in general terms) off the hook that easily, it wasn't the only option on the table, those who did well out of it have zero complaints even knowing what it did to others. And that's the attitude now.
 
I disagree (unsurprisingly) Cyber, the country got exactly what it wanted and was quite happy to tag along as long as they were 'All right Jack", happy to tolerate immigration, happy with the sub prime economic model, happy for those 'unfortunates'. Until the wheels fell off and then they point the finger at everybody other than themselves. The post war baby boomers are ultimately responsible for the political landscape of the last 38 years.
 
leedswolf said:
I disagree (unsurprisingly) Cyber, the country got exactly what it wanted and was quite happy to tag along as long as they were 'All right Jack", happy to tolerate immigration, happy with the sub prime economic model, happy for those 'unfortunates'. Until the wheels fell off and then they point the finger at everybody other than themselves. The post war baby boomers are ultimately responsible for the political landscape of the last 38 years.
Click to expand...

Leeds - suspect that I am just a bit older than you. Depends when you consider that the baby boomer generation started & finished as I don't see myself as part of that completely- certainly neither myself or any contemporaries that I knew then felt that way
 
Just a bit PLF. Baby boomers are the 1946 - 1964 generation IIRC?
 
I think it shows how out of touch politicians have been for 30 years. The spineless lack of tax increases or the chasing of large corporate conglomerates for appropriate tax is poor. Many of us would have taken a small tax hike if it meant better infrastructure or NHS. What I don't want to see is more skivers getting money so welfare reform was needed.
Me and Leeds are opposites so we rarely agree. I am 1964 but identify better with gen x than baby boom
 
Cyber-_-man said:
I think it shows how out of touch politicians have been for 30 years. The spineless lack of tax increases or the chasing of large corporate conglomerates for appropriate tax is poor. Many of us would have taken a small tax hike if it meant better infrastructure or NHS. What I don't want to see is more skivers getting money so welfare reform was needed.
Me and Leeds are opposites so we rarely agree. I am 1964 but identify better with gen x than baby boom
Click to expand...
Most people want to pay less and get more and somehow believe that society should only benefit those that 'put in'. I often hear people complain when their council tax increases for example. I find it strange that for someone who was recently posting to complain about the negative imaging of benefit recipients by the media uses the adjective 'skiver'.

An 'inbetweener' is one definition of generation x. Seems about right in your case.
 
Deutsch Wolf said:
Thatcherite voters don't place their cross there by accident and they don't read Thatcherite papers inadvertently either. I don't think you can let that generation (in general terms) off the hook that easily, it wasn't the only option on the table, those who did well out of it have zero complaints even knowing what it did to others. And that's the attitude now.
Click to expand...

imo that's closer to the truth but I think there are other things that can be factored in such as the electoral system, the impact of the press, what was the alternative that was being proposed...

Just on other points made.
i don't know if blair was a nailed on thatcherite or if he simply recognised that he needed to follow that line to win an election.

as for the country getting what it voted for, yes to an extent, but given that in many cases more people vote against the party that polls the most votes and goes on to form the goverment, that's not completely true. with a more representative electoral system you might also have had different voting patterns. of course you may then have had coalition style governments which might have been more representative but also more unstable and easier for non-democratic people to attack on the basis that the end policies "don't represent anything people voted for".
 
Blair's economics were broadly Thatcherite but his social policies certainly were not IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

darlowolf64
  • Locked
The Clique and how to join it...
Replies
6
Views
2K
The Bear
The Bear
lemonjelly
The Mental Health thread
49 50 51
Replies
1K
Views
103K
The Bear
The Bear
Back
Top