Political Parties can be in to long?

In the eighties and early nineties Margaret Thatcher and the Conservative party were in power. When Thatcher came to power at the end of the seventies. Brritain was economically weak. The Unions had power and many were out of work. Thatcher improved the standard of living but produced a me culture. She broke the Unions and paved the way modern management in the U.K. She put more money in the pokets of those working and reduced unemployment. She did not care about the welfare of those that did not, could not or were to old to work particularly and increased the divide between those that were rich and all others.

In the late nineties new labour started it's ten year reich based on Education (?) increased personal freedon (?) law and order (?) etc, etc.
The divide between rich and poor has increased, personal freedoms have been eroded thanks to a nanny state (the way for which was paved by Thatcher). Education results have gone up yet critics claiim the exams are easier now?

Have new Labour like the tories before them been in to long. Is the best way for the people to elect a political party for only one term in the U.K.

Originally posted by Zebedee

Have new Labour like the tories before them been in to long. Is the best way for the people to elect a political party for only one term in the U.K.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That wouldn't be very free, now would it?

It's a strategy for minimising parties being able to contol society to much. I'm not saying it would be a law.

3rd term syndrome...Like 3rd film syndrome, but with Prime Minsiters, not trilogies.

Originally posted by lord xyz
3rd term syndrome...Like 3rd film syndrome, but with Prime Minsiters, not trilogies.

Exactly.

They're like weird super-termites, termwise.
Give 'em enough time to dig in, and you're screwed.
You never get em out without seriously f***ing with your house.

Die, whirly-ish thing.

Tony Blair isn't that bad of a Prime Minister, the only reason people really hate him is because of Bush and Iraq.

One term politics don't work either, party's won't have enough time to make a difference.

Originally posted by Fishy
One term politics don't work either, party's won't have enough time to make a difference.

One-termin' peanut farmers FTW.

It's a difficult choice: On the one hand you want stability and the time you need to complete your party platform, on the other hand democratic systems generally thrive on regular change, certainly in a two party system.

Zebedee is forgetting that we do not directly elect rulers in this country, only local representatives who cannot be stopped from combining as they wish, so his entire argument is basically irrelevant.

Originally posted by Fire
It's a difficult choice: On the one hand you want stability and the time you need to complete your party platform, on the other hand democratic systems generally thrive on regular change, certainly in a two party system.

Originally posted by lord xyz
We don't have two parties. It's just Labour and Conservatives are the two leaders.

Never said the UK was a two party system 😛

Originally posted by Zebedee
Education results have gone up yet critics claiim the exams are easier now?

That part is the thing that rankles me.

The only ones who say that are the fogey brigade whom also think that bringing back National Service and the cane will solve all the problems on the streets (instead of making kids angrier and more violent as well as teaching them military tactics and how to use fire-arms better).

Originally posted by Fire
Never said the UK was a two party system 😛

And lol @ above post.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Oh right. Sorry.

Originally posted by Fire
NO prob, I responded a little crisped because I study politics at uni that's all 🙂

No not really, American politics aren't my specialty, plus that's pretty hard to predict/explain anywayz.