Dear me, MN !! Just as your charming offering says, it has been at least that long since Lady Thatcher left Office. And STILL it affects you so !!!

Such was the true nature of her greatness, that you simply cannot consign her memory to history. Her greatness endures, some of her legacy endures to today, will continue to endure for a very long time to come.

Even a Labour Government can see the commonsense of some of her reforms (Trade Union limits come to mind immediately). They know how good and necessary they are. They know that the Thatcher reforms cannot be bettered .. they know that to abandon her superior measures would be an act of madness.

She and her 'motley crew' succeeded in winning THREE SUCCESSIVE LANDSLIDE VICTORIES. So, for all your would-be rewriting of perceptions, MN, the truth of it is that she, and her people, were rightly popular.

Reality check time, MN.

The Unions were out of control, were acting as society's unelected wreckers, as the Winter of Discontent of '78-79 proved. Wave after wave of strikes. The UK seen as the 'sick man of Europe', and a joke throughout the world. Lost business contracts through lack of productivity, unavoidable in the face of those strikes. Jobs rendered unsupportable, so lost, creating the origin of the rising unemployed to come.

Lost productivity. A loss of ability to be seen as a reliable trading partner. Our reputation shot to pieces. Our threatened, perhaps terminal, decline loomed as a result.

MRS THATCHER SAVED US FROM ALL OF THAT. WE REGAINED VIABILITY AND PRESTIGE. WE BECAME RESPECTABLE AND RESPECTED ONCE MORE.

The NHS was never 'killed' .. what bilge !!! It survives to today ... or did you think it hadn't ??

The Argentinian invasion would've only been prevented had the Conservatives stationed a military presence on the Falklands previously, and that WAY in excess of anything that Callaghan before her ever permitted (or probably even imagined) !!!

And Mrs Thatcher's leadership DEFEATED that invasion. You conveniently overlooked that one !!

As for your final rewriting of history .. er'm, Labour are STILL in power.

I'm sorry, but you really must wait for Cameron's victory next year. Try to be patient until then !!

I think we should turn our attention to my blog:
http://www.politic.co.uk/blogs/liber...-thatcher.html

Originally Posted by Baldilocks

Dear me, MN !! Just as your charming offering says, it has been at least that long since Lady Thatcher left Office. And STILL it affects you so !!!

Such was the true nature of her greatness, that you simply cannot consign her memory to history. Her greatness endures, some of her legacy endures to today, will continue to endure for a very long time to come.

Even a Labour Government can see the commonsense of some of her reforms (Trade Union limits come to mind immediately). They know how good and necessary they are. They know that the Thatcher reforms cannot be bettered .. they know that to abandon her superior measures would be an act of madness.

She and her 'motley crew' succeeded in winning THREE SUCCESSIVE LANDSLIDE VICTORIES. So, for all your would-be rewriting of perceptions, MN, the truth of it is that she, and her people, were rightly popular.

Reality check time, MN.

The Unions were out of control, were acting as society's unelected wreckers, as the Winter of Discontent of '78-79 proved. Wave after wave of strikes. The UK seen as the 'sick man of Europe', and a joke throughout the world. Lost business contracts through lack of productivity, unavoidable in the face of those strikes. Jobs rendered unsupportable, so lost, creating the origin of the rising unemployed to come.

Lost productivity. A loss of ability to be seen as a reliable trading partner. Our reputation shot to pieces. Our threatened, perhaps terminal, decline loomed as a result.

MRS THATCHER SAVED US FROM ALL OF THAT. WE REGAINED VIABILITY AND PRESTIGE. WE BECAME RESPECTABLE AND RESPECTED ONCE MORE.

The NHS was never 'killed' .. what bilge !!! It survives to today ... or did you think it hadn't ??

The Argentinian invasion would've only been prevented had the Conservatives stationed a military presence on the Falklands previously, and that WAY in excess of anything that Callaghan before her ever permitted (or probably even imagined) !!!

And Mrs Thatcher's leadership DEFEATED that invasion. You conveniently overlooked that one !!

As for your final rewriting of history .. er'm, Labour are STILL in power.

I'm sorry, but you really must wait for Cameron's victory next year. Try to be patient until then !!

Baldi, It was joke and notice the quote, I did not write it.


Your blathering is really not well suited to this thread, just makes you look like a humourless 'expletive deleted' (thought you'd like the yank reference) . OR maybe (as someone suggested) a Jehovah's witness which keeps shouting like a lunatic about the 'truth' but fails to understand the absurdity of their own position. My favourite thing thing about your posts however is I don't really need to write much in response as it is all there in my signature line!

anyway if you really want a serious discussion of the milk snatcher lets go..

How do you counter the charge that she helped over throw a democracy and instal a dictator. that she allowed the British Tax payer to pay for British weapons then given to saddam Husein and her son tried to start an African coup. When you have delt with those points I have some more for you.

Originally Posted by Baldilocks

She and her 'motley crew' succeeded in winning THREE SUCCESSIVE LANDSLIDE VICTORIES. So, for all your would-be rewriting of perceptions, MN, the truth of it is that she, and her people, were rightly popular.

That same electorate propelled Blair to three landslide election victories.

"How do you counter the charge that she helped over throw a democracy and instal a dictator. that she allowed the British Tax payer to pay for British weapons then given to Saddam Hussein and her son tried to start an African coup. When you have dealt with those points I have some more for you."

I am sorry, but her son can do what he bloody likes. Just because her son tried to start a coup, doesn't mean the responsibility lies with her. It lies with him.

Additionally, she gave weapons to Saddam because he [and the rest of his soldiers] were fighting our enemy not us. So when looking at the time scale, there is nothing wrong with what she did.

Additionally, I hate quoting you Dougie, my spell checker goes mental.

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

I think we should turn our attention to my blog:
http://www.politic.co.uk/blogs/liber...-thatcher.html

Okay....

Thatcher turned the nation's anti-union feeling into a handsome parliamentary majority and a mandate to restrict union privileges by a series of laws that effectively ended Britain's trade-union problem once and for all. "Who governs Britain?" she famously asked as unions struggled for power. By 1980, everyone knew the answer: Thatcher governs.

Britain's trade union "problem" arose as a result of the atrocious working conditions of the pre-war era. The union movement provided a voice to ordinary working class people, and a mechanism whereby they could stand up to the government of the day, and hold their poor performance and failure to account. The resultant vacuum left by Thatcher's premeditated murder of trade unionism has fundamentally damaged our democracy, increased voter apathy and produced widespread disengagement from the political process in general. Does anyone believe for a second that Mr Brown would have lasted longer than 6 months as Prime Minister in the days of Heath and Callaghan? Chopping the union's ******** off as resulted in a situation whereby we must now endure the worst government in living memory until it's legal term expires - with no credible alternative on the horizon come the election. Thatcher may have made it easier for governments to govern, but in so doing she has ensured that even governments that deserved to collapse stay in tact and in charge.

Once the union citadel had been stormed, Thatcher quickly discovered that every area of the economy was open to judicious reform. Even as the rest of Europe toyed with socialism and state ownership, she set about privatizing the nationalized industries, which had been hitherto sacrosanct, no matter how inefficient.

Inefficiency was not the true motivation for reform - ideological zealotry was Thatcher's primary guiding force. There were problems in a lot of the nationalised industries (too large, insufficient investment, no long term vision) that had been allowed to build up since the early 1960's, primarily because of the ineffectiveness of previous governments to strike a workable political settlement between collectivist and entrepreneurial tendancies.

It worked. British Airways, an embarrassingly slovenly national carrier that very seldom showed a profit, was privatized and transformed into one of the world's best and most profitable airlines. British Steel, which lost more than a billion pounds in its final years as a state concern, became the largest steel company in Europe.

As a public sector organisation, British Airways was not meant to show a profit. It's purpose was to provide a service - not to squeeze as much as possible from the fare-paying public. The net result of the privatization of BA may in fact have contributed to it's demise - the airline stands in deep financial trouble as things stand and may be forced to retreat into a specialist niche market to survive. I do not believe anyone wants this for what is supposed to be our national flag-carrier. British Steel aka Corus is now Indian-owned and is also facing an uncertain financial future with the threat of closure constantly hanging over it. The short-termism practiced during the last two decades may have in fact a) contributed to the bubble and b) stunted our ability to reorganise and recover effectively.

By the mid-1980s, privatization was a new term in world government, and by the end of the decade more than 50 countries, on almost every continent, had set in motion privatization programs, floating loss-making public companies on the stock markets and in most cases transforming them into successful private-enterprise firms.

In many cases this has been achieved by price hikes in conjuction with continued government subsidization of the (often regulated) industry. The railways are a classic example of a privatisation that should never have happened.

Take a look at this graph of train fares vs consumer inflation since 1987.

Bottom line - we all have to pay proportionately more for an equal or worse service.

There is no doubt about it thatcher ruined our country..

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

I am sorry, but her son can do what he bloody likes. Just because her son tried to start a coup, doesn't mean the responsibility lies with her. It lies with him.

And yet I'm willing to bet that when some teenage stabbing takes place in south London, you're first port of call is to chastise the parents for failing to bring up the perpetrator properly.

Originally Posted by JAMC

And yet I'm willing to bet that when some teenage stabbing takes place in south London, you're first port of call is to chastise the parents for failing to bring up the perpetrator properly.

There is a substantial difference.

Firstly, teenagers [assuming 17 and under] are directly responsible to their parents. Over 18, though they are not responsible to their parents, their upbringing is flawed.

In relation to "sir" Mark, he was not directly responsible to Mrs Thatcher, and his was brought up properly.

The coup comes down to his own opportunistic behaviour. A coup cannot be blamed upon "the parents for failing to bring up the perpetrator properly"...

Unless of course, they were brought up to start a coup which of course would make it an entirely different matter; but I find that highly unlikely.

Additionally, she gave weapons to Saddam because he [and the rest of his soldiers] were fighting our enemy not us. So when looking at the time scale, there is nothing wrong with what she did.

NOTHING WRONG. Using the tax payer to fund slaughter, chemical weapons use. To use your own style of debate LA you are either a ****ing sicko or just ****ing stupid! I cannot tolerate such ignorance under any circumstances. Juding by most of your post I guess stupid, myself.

Originally Posted by Marxist Nutter

NOTHING WRONG. Using the tax payer to fund slaughter, chemical weapons use. To use your own style of debate LA you are either a ****ing sicko or just ****ing stupid! I cannot tolerate such ignorance under any circumstances.

funny enough that style is usually reserved for you.

Using tax payers money to fight an enemy... that is what happens in war.

You buy branded clothing? You ****ing sicko. How dare you fund the starvation and exploitation of poor African children.

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

funny enough that style is usually reserved for you.

Using tax payers money to fight an enemy... that is what happens in war.

You buy branded clothing? You ****ing sicko. How dare you fund the starvation and exploitation of poor African children.

No I do not. So don't you dare call me sick you ignorant little child. You obviously know northing about that war or you would not say such a stupid thing.

Originally Posted by Marxist Nutter

No I do not. So don't you dare call me sick you ignorant little child. You obviously know northing about that war or you would not say such a stupid thing.

I don't care what war it is, the same principal applies.

War is funded from the tax payer. There only difference here is that we allowed another nation to fight on our behalf.

In relation to your ignorant child comment, you clearly missed the point of my comment.