Margaret Thatcher is dead.

[molly bloom]

Unless you simply replace it with private sector monopolies with useless managers and a shockingly irresponsible attitude to public safety, of course.

He knows nothing about U.K. privatization- that is self-evident, since his knowledge of U.K. post-WWII social and political history could be written with the blunt end of a redwood on a microdot and still leave room for the Albanian translation of the Ramayana.

What's more disturbing is that he hasn't heard of what happened in California or Argentina or... he simply parrots monetarist nostrums, which I suppose saves his family from buying an exotic bird that might do the same.

[molly bloom]

I would have expected you to have a different take on this war as it seems like it was the outcome of that war that gave her the political weight she needed to declare war on the coal miners.

There was an insignificant effect on the Tory Party's vote share post-Falklands. She never had a mandate- at most she had 42-44% of votes cast on a 70-74% turnout. It was only our first past the post electoral system that gave her the parliamentary numbers.

The action against the coal miners was prepared well in advance- there'd already been a previous lengthy steel strike in her first term, for instance.

[molly bloom]

Could you provide some examples?

Cedric Brown and British Gas- when public sector workers were being urged to exercise pay restraint (despite low levels of pay) Mr Brown had a pay increase of 75%. Did he make the gas gassier ? Not notably.

Unfortunately for the Tories, a rather too obvious number of ministers and favoured civil servants involved in the privatization of state owned industries started cropping up as directors in those selfsame industries after privatization- shares having been sold at low, low prices and the 'new' companies started out with pricing and servicing contracts that were punitive to those least able to pay, and of course there were more large scale redundancies, and what became known (repeatedly) in the cliched world of the media as 'fatcat' bonuses.

I believe it was F.D.R. who introduced the legislation in the U.S. that protected consumers there against similar treatment... until the last couple of decades of teh 20th Century, that is...

I'd rather have that than have some bloodsucking unions draining the public treasury.

I'd rather you weren't a tool and could make intelligent informed contributions about anything other than how to fellate firerarms, but we can all dream.

[molly bloom]

Ronnie Reagan won the Cold War and beat the godless commies, and if you didn't just regurgitate what the Lefty Powers That Be told you to, you'd realize it.

Oh look, it's not even amusing as a joke. Do you have any other material ? Nothing from Hayek or Friedman ?

[molly bloom]

That sounds straight out of the Republican play book. Poor people aren't voting for us because we keep screwing them over? OK, make it so they can't vote.

You could escape payingthe Poll Tax- by not registering to vote. Of course over there in Florida, being black, poor or Hispanic also helps, as does being likely to vote for anyone other than the Republicans.

Alas, it seems to have been one of those American influenced 'gurus' at the Adam Smith Institute, Dr. Madsen Pirie- or Dr. Mads for short- who was most instrumental in persuading Thatcher to bring in a tax last tried under Richard II and responsible for the great Peasants' Revolt of the 14th Century.

It was tried first in Scotland in 1989, where its evident shortcomings and failings might have led a Prime Minister open to others' opinions to drop it like the steamning maggot-strewn heap of catsh!t it was- but she knew better.

Norman Lamont had to bring in a rescue/reduction package amounting to £ 4-5 billion, and a V.A.T. increase of 2.5% to 17.5%, and still implementation, adminstration and eventual replacement of the Poll Tax ended up costing in the region of £ 1.5 billion.

Still, there's the evidence she stood firmly behind what she believed....

[molly bloom]

and she never made her decisions based on attacking enemies.

Oh please. What was the point of Clause 28 ? Who was it meant to protect ?

She compared ordinary union members with the Argentinian armed forces and the I.R.A. . I note that she didn't mind Solidarnosc, but then that was in Poland.

And remember Thatcher denying G.C.H.Q. workers the right to belong to a trade union ? So much for human rights at home- always much safer to bleat about them abroad, when it won't mean you actually have to do anything of substance.

And don't get me started on her support for Abdul Haq... or tobacco giants....

[kentonio]

[regexcellent]

You know it's coming when the godforsaken music thread gets bumped.

[giblets]

I never thought I'd feel nostalgic about British Rail.

I was wrong.

The same with the privatized water, electricity and gas suppliers. Do you really think what we have now is an improvement ?



Uh huh. And the recession she presided over had no effect on that whatsoever.



It was bigoted and pandering to the supine rightwing press in a bid for votes.



No, I haven't- and it was the electorate who decided he didn't.



Which is an emollient way of saying her policies and those of her party were responsible for the worst unemployment figures since the Great Depression- somewhat ironic for those of us who can recall the 'Labour Isn't Working' Saatchi ads:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]173862[/ATTACH]

under Labour it was 1 million (roughly). Under Thatcher, government figures were 3 million plus. Then there was the rampant inflation, and remember V.A.T. increasing from 8% to 15% - in the first term ? National Insurance contributions went up too- still, as long as you present yourself publicly as the party of low direct taxation, that's all that counts.

He knows nothing about U.K. privatization- that is self-evident, since his knowledge of U.K. post-WWII social and political history could be written with the blunt end of a redwood on a microdot and still leave room for the Albanian translation of the Ramayana.

What's more disturbing is that he hasn't heard of what happened in California or Argentina or... he simply parrots monetarist nostrums, which I suppose saves his family from buying an exotic bird that might do the same.

There was an insignificant effect on the Tory Party's vote share post-Falklands. She never had a mandate- at most she had 42-44% of votes cast on a 70-74% turnout. It was only our first past the post electoral system that gave her the parliamentary numbers.

The action against the coal miners was prepared well in advance- there'd already been a previous lengthy steel strike in her first term, for instance.

Cedric Brown and British Gas- when public sector workers were being urged to exercise pay restraint (despite low levels of pay) Mr Brown had a pay increase of 75%. Did he make the gas gassier ? Not notably.

Unfortunately for the Tories, a rather too obvious number of ministers and favoured civil servants involved in the privatization of state owned industries started cropping up as directors in those selfsame industries after privatization- shares having been sold at low, low prices and the 'new' companies started out with pricing and servicing contracts that were punitive to those least able to pay, and of course there were more large scale redundancies, and what became known (repeatedly) in the cliched world of the media as 'fatcat' bonuses.

I believe it was F.D.R. who introduced the legislation in the U.S. that protected consumers there against similar treatment... until the last couple of decades of teh 20th Century, that is...



I'd rather you weren't a tool and could make intelligent informed contributions about anything other than how to fellate firerarms, but we can all dream.

Oh look, it's not even amusing as a joke. Do you have any other material ? Nothing from Hayek or Friedman ?

You could escape payingthe Poll Tax- by not registering to vote. Of course over there in Florida, being black, poor or Hispanic also helps, as does being likely to vote for anyone other than the Republicans.

Alas, it seems to have been one of those American influenced 'gurus' at the Adam Smith Institute, Dr. Madsen Pirie- or Dr. Mads for short- who was most instrumental in persuading Thatcher to bring in a tax last tried under Richard II and responsible for the great Peasants' Revolt of the 14th Century.

It was tried first in Scotland in 1989, where its evident shortcomings and failings might have led a Prime Minister open to others' opinions to drop it like the steamning maggot-strewn heap of catsh!t it was- but she knew better.

Norman Lamont had to bring in a rescue/reduction package amounting to £ 4-5 billion, and a V.A.T. increase of 2.5% to 17.5%, and still implementation, adminstration and eventual replacement of the Poll Tax ended up costing in the region of £ 1.5 billion.

Still, there's the evidence she stood firmly behind what she believed....

Oh please. What was the point of Clause 28 ? Who was it meant to protect ?

She compared ordinary union members with the Argentinian armed forces and the I.R.A. . I note that she didn't mind Solidarnosc, but then that was in Poland.

And remember Thatcher denying G.C.H.Q. workers the right to belong to a trade union ? So much for human rights at home- always much safer to bleat about them abroad, when it won't mean you actually have to do anything of substance.

And don't get me started on her support for Abdul Haq... or tobacco giants....

.

[dannubis]

Somehow I don't think you will get thanked for that...

[Hauldren Collider]

You know it's coming when the godforsaken music thread gets bumped.

QFT

[DinoDoc]

There was an insignificant effect on the Tory Party's vote share post-Falklands. She never had a mandate- at most she had 42-44% of votes cast on a 70-74% turnout. It was only our first past the post electoral system that gave her the parliamentary numbers.

If I remember my history correctly, before April 2, 1982 opinion polls showed her to be among the most unpopular Prime Ministers ever. It was after UK forces won the Falklands war that her popularity soared, allowing her to call a general election in 1983 which her party won by a landslide. It was after that the UK government declared war on the coal miners.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Yes, she could very easily have lost the election if Argentina hadn't invaded. Although Labour were hitting the self-destruct button at the time, the newly-formed SDP was building momentum and threatening to sweep the popular vote.

[Krill]

There was an insignificant effect on the Tory Party's vote share post-Falklands. She never had a mandate- at most she had 42-44% of votes cast on a 70-74% turnout. It was only our first past the post electoral system that gave her the parliamentary numbers.

The action against the coal miners was prepared well in advance- there'd already been a previous lengthy steel strike in her first term, for instance.

Gotta call bull**** on that mandate %age, because that would mean effectively no UK government had a mandate to do pretty much anything for at least the past 50 years.

[Hauldren Collider]

I think molly's too bent out of shape over the anti gay stuff to recognize that Thatcher saved Britain from itself. The unemployment wasn't caused by Thatcher, it was an inevitable consequence of the welfare state. Moving away from that made it happen earlier than it otherwise would have, but not permanent.