When coal miners strike occur during the worst winter
periods, and public transport workers suddenly walked out of
their work places during the most inconvenient times - Magaret
Thatcher made it her goal in her second term to curtail the
powers of the union, and removed the ability to launch wild cat
strikes in UK.
Did that not benefit everyone ?
You do realise that reducing the power of the unions is not the
only thing she did? I have no problem with her reducing the power
of the unions, but her policy of privatising the national
industries in the UK.
If you are so keen to know more about the benefits from Margaret
Thatcher's three terms as Prime Minister of UK, you could do an
honest
search with the help of google, instead of this see-sawing
exchange.
If you believe in the PAP's way of creating benefit
to the "majority" first, and attend to the
"minority" later - why do you have issues with this
?
Maybe I disagree with the PAP's view of giving benefits to the
majority while ignoring the minorites?
Good for you to have such a thought - at least the PAP feeding
of the stomachs did not dull another mind in this Speaker's
Corner.
Prior to Margaret Thatcher's becoming PM of UK, the
previous PM was Edward Heath, who was subjected to pressures from
the various powerful trade unions that were not answerable to
the electorates, and did as much to protect their own interests.
Interestingly, in an autobiography of her, it stated that
industrial output did not drop much (if at all) and certainly not
the 40% one might expect showing just how much overmanning existed
then. (*1)
Was it the fault of her policies that resulted in
high unemployment in the early 1990s - just before she stepped
down, or was it due to the recession that hit UK then
?
Wait? You are using Margaret's own autobiography to defend
her?Even if the drop in manufactoring output is not 40 percent, why
do you even think that Britian's industrial output should drop to
begin with?
So your only defense of Thatcher is she did not screw up bad
enough?
Between 1979 and 1985, 1.5 million workers are laid off,
industrial output dropped by 11 percent, trade in manufacturing
dropped from a surplus to a deficit,
And wait, so you are also defending her because the economic
meltdown occurred after she step down from office? So if the
economic meltdown only occurs after Bush step down from power and
when Obama is in power, you won't blame Bush and his policies for
the economic meltdown?
Do I need to defend Margaret Thatcher when her records are for
every possible interpretation to fit everyone's different
agenda in having a view about her ?
Was it some people who expressed their frustration with
the ruling party for a long period, or can you not accept the
opinion of
nearly 14 million, who expressed through their vote in Japan’s
general election (*2) - based on news report of the count
up to this hour ?
How the hell do you determine that the majority of the people
are voting against the ruling party for staying in power for a long
period of time based on a few interviews? Can you seriously tell me
that five or ten interviews is enough to say 14 million voters are
voting based on the fact that the ruling party has been in power
for 50 over years?
The election is just over, from surfing across all the different
blogs on the www, you could make up your own views if you wish.
Should there be any interest to influence your opinion in any
ways ?
If you wish to see a detailed analysis for the reasons in
LDP's downfall, you can wait a few more days or weeks for analysts
to appear with their thoughts discussed on TV and -
or over the www.
Same question is being asked with Singapore - why have
we tolerated this situation for 52 years - since 1957, or 44 years
since 1965 ?
Is it not due to the same old "kiasu and kiasi" over
cautious attitude of not facing a new world boldly, and believing
in the same old fears that the incumbents continue to
exploit for their own benefit ?
The unemployment rate has hit 5.7% in Japan now, and
they have been in similar economic limbo for the last ten
years.
Should we wait for the same set of circumstances before
we make the choice, or watch another US$100 Billion unaccounted
loss from our reserves before we wake up to the new realities
?
You are the one who defended Thatcher by saying it is the fault
of the recession that increased unemplyoment rate in UK, yet you
are backpedalling and saying that we should vote the PAP out of
office due to the fact that we are in an recession?
Was my statement about Thatcher a defense of her position ?
Does she need any defending when her records speak for
herself ?
The view stated was an abstract from a review that I read
over the web when googling for details, perhaps I should have
qualify it better.
We should vote the PAP out of office for the false claim of
themselves being elites able to manage Singapore economy of
GDP US$240 Billion, and deserving the approximately
three million dollar wages paid to each of them.
Yet they will need to wait for the positive results of
the actions from the US President, who is paid less then
US$500,000, to resolve his US economy with a GDP
valued at US$14 Trillion.
