Maggie: What would be an apt tribute?

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="ricardo"]Well I''ve just come back from a pleasant day out in North Norfolk with Mrs R and found the Mrs T thread still going. Lots of very interesting and well thought out points raised by people from both ends of the political spectrum.Quite plainly she was a woman who polarized opinions.Despite the protestations from the left there can be no doubting that she was one of the major political figures of the 20th century. She won the big arguments of the day and changed the political landscape. The measure of the woman can be seen by the shadow she cast and of our subsequent leaders have had to define themselves by it. That should be tribute enough for anyone.[/quote]

 

 

ricardo, I have seen no attempt by anyone serious on the left to portray Thatcher as an insignificant figure. You are right that all the British political leaders who have followed have been Thatcher''s Children. That is not the argument. The argument is whether she changed the political landscape because she was right, or because she destroyed the concept of altruism by pandering to people''s baser, most selfish instincts..

[Break like the wind 0]

As she passed away at the age of 87, maybe in the 87th minute of each game we should burst into a chorus of ''Ding,dong,the witch is dead''. Its what she would have wanted.

[ricardo 7,385]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="ricardo"]Well I''ve just come back from a pleasant day out in North Norfolk with Mrs R and found the Mrs T thread still going. Lots of very interesting and well thought out points raised by people from both ends of the political spectrum.Quite plainly she was a woman who polarized opinions.Despite the protestations from the left there can be no doubting that she was one of the major political figures of the 20th century. She won the big arguments of the day and changed the political landscape. The measure of the woman can be seen by the shadow she cast and of our subsequent leaders have had to define themselves by it. That should be tribute enough for anyone.[/quote]

 

 

ricardo, I have seen no attempt by anyone serious on the left to portray Thatcher as an insignificant figure. You are right that all the British political leaders who have followed have been Thatcher''s Children. That is not the argument. The argument is whether she changed the political landscape because she was right, or because she destroyed the concept of altruism by pandering to people''s baser, most selfish instincts..

[/quote]The big division of the day was between Socialism and CapitalismShe quite plainly won that argument when Tony Blair ditched Clause 4."Let me give you my vision. A mans right to work as he will, to spend what he earns, to own property, to have the State as a servant and not as a master- These are the British inheritance. They are the essence of a free economy and on that freedom all other freedoms depend".Margeret Thatcher 10th Oct 1975It might suit you to frame the argument as one between selfishness and altruism but as someone said earlier in the thread, The Good Samaritan was not only good but also wealthy.

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="City1st"]

odd how pretty much the same stuff happened across the rest of Western Europe yet she wasn''t their Prime Minister

 

likewise how the recent slump that hit the rest of Western Europe is blamed by some on Gordon Brown, yet he was only Britain''s Prime Minister

 

as the funeral gets nearer I expect the claims to become even more absurd and will no doubt climb to North Korean levels of delusion

 

perhaps her dear friend, one James Savile, might be brought back into the fold during this period of re writing of history

 

who knows

[/quote]

That''s because her radical policies worked in the UK and were imitated later by leaders of those countries !!!!  Doh!!! [:D]

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="ricardo"]Well I''ve just come back from a pleasant day out in North Norfolk with Mrs R and found the Mrs T thread still going. Lots of very interesting and well thought out points raised by people from both ends of the political spectrum.Quite plainly she was a woman who polarized opinions.

Despite the protestations from the left there can be no doubting that she was one of the major political figures of the 20th century. She won the big arguments of the day and changed the political landscape. The measure of the woman can be seen by the shadow she cast and of our subsequent leaders have had to define themselves by it. That should be tribute enough for anyone.
[/quote]

 

 

ricardo, I have seen no attempt by anyone serious on the left to portray Thatcher as an insignificant figure. You are right that all the British political leaders who have followed have been Thatcher''s Children. That is not the argument. The argument is whether she changed the political landscape because she was right, or because she destroyed the concept of altruism by pandering to people''s baser, most selfish instincts.

.

[/quote]

The big division of the day was between Socialism and Capitalism

She quite plainly won that argument when Tony Blair ditched Clause 4.

"Let me give you my vision. A mans right to work as he will, to spend what he earns, to own property, to have the State as a servant and not as a master- These are the British inheritance. They are the essence of a free economy and on that freedom all other freedoms depend".

Margeret Thatcher 10th Oct 1975

It might suit you to frame the argument as one between selfishness and altruism but as someone said earlier in the thread, The Good Samaritan was not only good but also wealthy.


[/quote]

Tony Blair has allegedly 30 million quid in the banks around the world and I''ve not been aware of him giving any of it away.  Those that have something against wealth are essentially jealous individuals until they have their own wealth IMO.  Bill Gates has given most of his billions away. Is he therefore a Socialist.....  [:D]

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="ricardo"]Well I''ve just come back from a pleasant day out in North Norfolk with Mrs R and found the Mrs T thread still going. Lots of very interesting and well thought out points raised by people from both ends of the political spectrum.Quite plainly she was a woman who polarized opinions.Despite the protestations from the left there can be no doubting that she was one of the major political figures of the 20th century. She won the big arguments of the day and changed the political landscape. The measure of the woman can be seen by the shadow she cast and of our subsequent leaders have had to define themselves by it. That should be tribute enough for anyone.[/quote]

 

 

ricardo, I have seen no attempt by anyone serious on the left to portray Thatcher as an insignificant figure. You are right that all the British political leaders who have followed have been Thatcher''s Children. That is not the argument. The argument is whether she changed the political landscape because she was right, or because she destroyed the concept of altruism by pandering to people''s baser, most selfish instincts..

[/quote]The big division of the day was between Socialism and CapitalismShe quite plainly won that argument when Tony Blair ditched Clause 4."Let me give you my vision. A mans right to work as he will, to spend what he earns, to own property, to have the State as a servant and not as a master- These are the British inheritance. They are the essence of a free economy and on that freedom all other freedoms depend".Margeret Thatcher 10th Oct 1975It might suit you to frame the argument as one between selfishness and altruism but as someone said earlier in the thread, The Good Samaritan was not only good but also wealthy.

[/quote]

 

That is nonsense, ricardo. The Labour party may have had Clause 4 in its constitution but no-one took it seriously. On the occasions I voted Labour I didn''t for a moment expect it to implement socialist policies. I hoped it would manage capitalism with a bit more humanity than did the Tories. That was all. Labour was never a socialist party in practice. It was, like similar parties in continental Europe, social democratic. Capitalism, for good or ill, was accepted by all British mainstream parties. More than that, there was a post-war consensus throughout western Europe that was effectively social democratic. Even right-wing parties in Germany, for example, and France accepted that and implemented policies accordingly. This was partly because that was pragmatically seen as the best way of keeping the various national communist parties weak, but also because it seemed the moral way to govern a country.You are right that I do frame the argument (not entirely but...) as being between altruism and selfishness. What I don''t do (and I recognise that Thatcher quote about the Good Samaritan) is to see money as being the only means through which people can act altruistically. It was typical of Thatcher that she saw it that way rather than being able to imagine the altruism and selflessness that can come through a sense of community. You can be a Good Samaritan without a penny in your pocket.I grew up in a Norwich which still had bomb sites and rationing on some items of food, but no German occupying forces. At the time I put that done in part to altruism and a sense of community. And still do.

[Badger 2,405]

Paul, I have no particular desire to defend the last Labour government which was essentially a Thatcherite one. Nevertheless, I find it difficult to avoid pointing to the facts, which is "where I came in."

1. Since 1975, there have only been only 7 years when governments has NOT had a deficit. There were three years under Mrs T (88,89,90) and four years under the last labour government (98,99,2000, 2001). Neither party has a record of running a surplus since 1975. Prior to this BOTH parties ran a surplus - there was a surplus in every single year from 1947 to 1974. It is perhaps a surprise that the much criticised post war consensus was much more fiscally conservative than new consensus Thatcherism.

2. Prior to the financial crisis the biggest deficit was just under 21 billion. It was higher than this figure in EVERY year of the last conservative government under John Major.

Whatever the qualities (or otherwise) of Mrs T, it is difficult to argue that Thatcherism is fiscally conservative. It is equally difficult to demonstrate that one party is more financially prudent than another, but if you look at the data from the second world war until the financial crisis it would indicate that the Labour party has tended to run smaller deficits, although not greatly so.

Paul, it''s all "political froth," there is hardly any difference between the two parties.

[Badger 2,405]

Paul, I have no particular desire to defend the last Labour government which was essentially a Thatcherite one. Nevertheless, I find it difficult to avoid pointing to the facts, which is "where I came in."

1. Since 1975, there have only been only 7 years when governments has NOT had a deficit. There were three years under Mrs T (88,89,90) and four years under the last labour government (98,99,2000, 2001). Neither party has a consistent record of running a surplus since 1975. Prior to this BOTH parties ran a surplus - there was a surplus in every single year from 1947 to 1974. It is perhaps a surprise that the much criticised post war consensus was much more fiscally conservative than new consensus Thatcherism.

2. Prior to the financial crisis, the biggest deficit run by the last Labour government was just under 21 billion. It was higher than this figure in EVERY year of the last conservative government under John Major.

Whatever the qualities (or otherwise) of Mrs T, it is difficult to argue that Thatcherism is fiscally conservative. It is equally difficult to demonstrate that one party is more financially prudent than another, but if you look at the data from the second world war until the financial crisis it would indicate that the Labour party has tended to run smaller deficits, although not greatly so.

Paul, it''s all "political froth," there is hardly any difference between the two parties.

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="paul moy"][quote user="City1st"]

odd how pretty much the same stuff happened across the rest of Western Europe yet she wasn''t their Prime Minister

 

likewise how the recent slump that hit the rest of Western Europe is blamed by some on Gordon Brown, yet he was only Britain''s Prime Minister

 

as the funeral gets nearer I expect the claims to become even more absurd and will no doubt climb to North Korean levels of delusion

 

perhaps her dear friend, one James Savile, might be brought back into the fold during this period of re writing of history

 

who knows

[/quote]

That''s because her radical policies worked in the UK and were imitated later by leaders of those countries !!!!  Doh!!! [:D]

[/quote]

 

oh dear, dearie me

 

We are still in North Korea where facts cannot be used to ''sully'' the memory of the great leader

 

The policies were neither radical nor hers. Monetarism as it be came to be be known was already being practised by Dennis Healey way before she was elected Prime Minister. He even began the privatisation process by selling off shares in state owned BP He was merely a product of his time, as was she.

 

To confuse cause with effect is to tell us that the cockerel crowing at the beginning of the Pathe news was the one responsible for Britian being on the winning side in WW2 - though given the ridiculous old guff that that is now being peddaled I wouldn''t doubt that will most likely be claimed before the week is out.

 

Whilst it is to be expected of various public figures to ''fall into line'', likewise newspapers, it is rather disturbing to see folk who willingly laughed at this sort of stuff -

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSWN6Qj98Iw

 

themselves needing a similar distorted projection of history and reality - a rather worrying realisation of the sheep in George Orwell''s Animal Farm

 

 

[Joanna Grey 0]

Anyone know whether Benjamin Charles Elton had anything to say about her passing? After all he did base 95% of his stand up act on her.

[Andy Larkin 15]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"]a mass playing of "in the City" or "Eton rifles" by the Jam...Fans of the band will know why and the meanings of the songs will know why!

[/quote]Hmmmm… shame he went and spoiled his ''impeccable'' socialist values by sending his kids into privatised education, subsequently rendering all of his previous posturing irrelevant.I had the good fortune to take him to task about that as we both stood having a fag outside a shop on Kensington High St whilst waiting for respective partners to finish shopping for some gaudy tat.He was charming company until that point came up. He cleared off whilst I was mid taking him to task.Oh well… heroes and all that.

[Andy Larkin 15]

[quote user="paul moy"]Waffle, waffle, waffle ad infinitum… Insert here any misguided, dangerous repetition of unsubstantiated media headlines of your choice.Wilful ignorance of serious statistics etc etcMore waffle etc etc[/quote]Is your location ironic?

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="City1st"][quote user="paul moy"]

[quote user="Dr Crafty Canary"]City 1st wrote; So can you or Dr Crafty (or whatever other name is being used) point us to evidence of that claim, which is so you don''t get confused - "Why did Nelson Mandela praise her for her role in bringing about the downfall of apartheid?" No I can''t point you to direct evidence as I didn''t think 20+ years ago when he said it that i would need to make a copy of the reference in order to satisfy you 20+ years later. That doesn''t mean it was not said. I remember it because I thought at the time it was a surprising thing to say. Of course you are not going to believe me because you don''t want it to be true. Well that''s your problem not mine.[/quote]

In mid 80s Thatcher and Ronald Reagan called for an end to apartheid and the release of Mandela or sanctions were to be imposed under the Comprehensive Apartheid Act* which was passed in the US in 1986 . This was the catalyst for the end of apartheid and presumably why Mandela praised her.

[/quote]

 

"In mid 80s Thatcher and Ronald Reagan called for an end to apartheid and the release of Mandela "

 

That is actually a blatant lie. 

 

The Comprehensive Anti Apartheid Act was passed over the veto of Reagan who tried to block it. In fact on July 22, 1986, Reagan called proposed sanctions against South Africa a “historic act of folly.” To which Desmond Tutu responded by stating  “Your president is the pits as far as blacks are concerned. I think the West, for my part, can go to hell.”

 

There was never a call for an end to apartheid from either of them. In fact Thatcher contiously opposed the imposing of sanctions on South africa and continued to call Mandela a terrorist throught the run up to the end of apartheid..

 

Whether their actions were right or wrong is maybe another discussion, by what is not wrong is the evidence that demonstrates yet more lies and misinformation are still being peddled by those who would re write history.

 

Folk need to ask themselves what else are they being lied about in this great crusade to distort the truth - and how much more was lied about to justify previous actions. Many look back and wonder how previous generations were ''fooled'', how they went along with dangerous stuff, with leaders that is were clearly a threat to their welfare.

 

Well, perhaps some be best to start looking a little closer at what is being put out here as the past is now being written in a way that would embarrass even the Soviet Union - aswhen  it previously talked of the great triumphs of dear old Uncle Joe.

 

 

* Freudlian slip, perhaps ?

 

 

[/quote]

 

This article from today''s Guardian throws light on Thatcher and apartheid. It provides fuel for both sides of the argument:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/10/margaret-thatcher-apartheid-mandela

One small aspect it doesn''t mention is that when a rebel English cricket team went to then-apartheid South Africa in 1982 and Thatcher was put on the spot in the Commons about this she refused time and again to condemn the players. Perhaps an indication of where her feelings lay, as opposed to official government policy.

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="City1st"]

odd how pretty much the same stuff happened across the rest of Western Europe yet she wasn''t their Prime Minister

 

likewise how the recent slump that hit the rest of Western Europe is blamed by some on Gordon Brown, yet he was only Britain''s Prime Minister

 

as the funeral gets nearer I expect the claims to become even more absurd and will no doubt climb to North Korean levels of delusion

 

perhaps her dear friend, one James Savile, might be brought back into the fold during this period of re writing of history

 

who knows

[/quote]

One of her major legacies to the world is that other governments followed her policies on privatisation, business and economy, saw their success and implemented those very policies themselves. She generated hope and aspiration throughout the world. That''s what the lefties hate.  

[Larson E Whipsnade 0]

"..One of her major legacies to the world is that other governments followed her policies on privatisation, business and economy...".

They were not her policies but those of Milton Friedman ( Monetarism ). She never had an original idea in her life. "...She generated hope and aspiration throughout the world...". But nothing north of Watford . " "...Lefties..." . Your constant use of this idiotic and meaningless term rather gives the game away. As Alexi Sayle used to say " Hello John , got a new motor ? ".

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="Larson E Whipsnade"]"..One of her major legacies to the world is that other governments followed her policies on privatisation, business and economy...".

They were not her policies but those of Milton Friedman ( Monetarism ). She never had an original idea in her life. "...She generated hope and aspiration throughout the world...". But nothing north of Watford . " "...Lefties..." . Your constant use of this idiotic and meaningless term rather gives the game away. As Alexi Sayle used to say " Hello John , got a new motor ? ".[/quote]

 

Anyone who thinks Friedman''s (and by extension Thatcher''s) economic ideas "generated hope and aspiration throughout the world" has plainly never read Naomi Klein''s The Shock Doctrine.

[Bill 1,788]

"One of her major legacies to the world is that other governments followed her policies on privatisation, business and economy, saw their success and implemented those very policies themselves. She generated hope and aspiration throughout the world. That''s what the lefties hate."

 

 

She also ''invented'' penicillin, organised Live Aid and single handedly built the world''s first personal computer

 

 

ps I''m surprised no one mentioned Thatcher''s ashes - that memorable test match when she destroyed the Australians ..... though I don''t doubt Mr Moy will be along with it soon, once Fox news has posted it up on their website

 

 

 

[ricardo 7,385]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="ricardo"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="ricardo"]Well I''ve just come back from a pleasant day out in North Norfolk with Mrs R and found the Mrs T thread still going. Lots of very interesting and well thought out points raised by people from both ends of the political spectrum.Quite plainly she was a woman who polarized opinions.Despite the protestations from the left there can be no doubting that she was one of the major political figures of the 20th century. She won the big arguments of the day and changed the political landscape. The measure of the woman can be seen by the shadow she cast and of our subsequent leaders have had to define themselves by it. That should be tribute enough for anyone.[/quote]

 

 

ricardo, I have seen no attempt by anyone serious on the left to portray Thatcher as an insignificant figure. You are right that all the British political leaders who have followed have been Thatcher''s Children. That is not the argument. The argument is whether she changed the political landscape because she was right, or because she destroyed the concept of altruism by pandering to people''s baser, most selfish instincts..

[/quote]The big division of the day was between Socialism and CapitalismShe quite plainly won that argument when Tony Blair ditched Clause 4."Let me give you my vision. A mans right to work as he will, to spend what he earns, to own property, to have the State as a servant and not as a master- These are the British inheritance. They are the essence of a free economy and on that freedom all other freedoms depend".Margeret Thatcher 10th Oct 1975It might suit you to frame the argument as one between selfishness and altruism but as someone said earlier in the thread, The Good Samaritan was not only good but also wealthy.

[/quote]

 

That is nonsense, ricardo. The Labour party may have had Clause 4 in its constitution but no-one took it seriously. On the occasions I voted Labour I didn''t for a moment expect it to implement socialist policies. I hoped it would manage capitalism with a bit more humanity than did the Tories. That was all. Labour was never a socialist party in practice. It was, like similar parties in continental Europe, social democratic. Capitalism, for good or ill, was accepted by all British mainstream parties. More than that, there was a post-war consensus throughout western Europe that was effectively social democratic. Even right-wing parties in Germany, for example, and France accepted that and implemented policies accordingly. This was partly because that was pragmatically seen as the best way of keeping the various national communist parties weak, but also because it seemed the moral way to govern a country.You are right that I do frame the argument (not entirely but...) as being between altruism and selfishness. What I don''t do (and I recognise that Thatcher quote about the Good Samaritan) is to see money as being the only means through which people can act altruistically. It was typical of Thatcher that she saw it that way rather than being able to imagine the altruism and selflessness that can come through a sense of community. You can be a Good Samaritan without a penny in your pocket.I grew up in a Norwich which still had bomb sites and rationing on some items of food, but no German occupying forces. At the time I put that done in part to altruism and a sense of community. And still do.

[/quote]I grew up in that same Norwich, Purple but I would suggest the reason there were no occupying German forces had very little to do with altruism and a sense of community. I wouldn''t deny for a minute that a threat to our national existence didn''t engender a feeling of all pulling together but it played a very minor part in defeating the enemy in the field. You and I are of a similar age and no doubt we both played soldiers on those Norwich bombsites reveling as youngsters do in the fact that we had beaten Hitler. It wasn''t until I was much older and having read a lot more that I found that the truth of the matter was somewhat different. Without wishing to denigrate the part played by our parents generation, in large part it was Russian lives and American money that were instrumental in our victory.I can''t go along with your premise that Labour were never a Socialist party in practice. When we were children the state owned large parts of the means of production and distribution thanks to the Labour government of 1945/51. For good or ill that was swept away during the 1980''s and 13 yrs of Labour government since then did nothing at all to turn that clock back. I would therefore suggest that the question of public/private ownership has largely been resolved in favour of the latter.Then we come to the Cold War and the confrontation with Soviet expansion. Siren voices on the left predicted disaster and supported The Geenham Common protests and Nuclear disarmament. Well, we all know how that turned out with the collapse of the Soviet Union through a combination of that stance and the systems own internal contradictions.Then we come to the nub of the matter that the left still find hard to swallow. The Wilson/Callaghan governments of the 1970''s were unable to find a solution to the industrial problems of that era. If there was an easy way out of it you have to ask yourself why beer and sandwiches in late night meetings in Downing St with the Union leaders were unable to find it. The truth of the matter is that certain sections of the left wanted a confrontation with the succeeding Tory government because they thought they could win it. I listened to an Interview with Neil Kinnock a couple of days ago and he admitted that Scargill could have had a comprise agreement with Thatcher but wanted complete victory. That didn''t end too well for him and his members did it? I don''t dispute that de-industrialisation was handled better in other countries but for a variety of reasons that didn''t work here. I suggest a reading of Correlli Barnett''s "The Lost Victory" will explain the background to that, far better than I can.So for all those reasons my contention remains that more good came out of the Thatcher years than bad. Nothing is all black or all white but I have yet to hear an convincing argument for removing the sweeping changes of the Thatcher years and the failure of 13 years of Labour to do anything about it would suggest that on that score I am right.

[paul moy 235]

[quote user=" Badger"]Paul, I have no particular desire to defend the last Labour government which was essentially a Thatcherite one. Nevertheless, I find it difficult to avoid pointing to the facts, which is "where I came in." 1. Since 1975, there have only been only 7 years when governments has NOT had a deficit. There were three years under Mrs T (88,89,90) and four years under the last labour government (98,99,2000, 2001). Neither party has a record of running a surplus since 1975. Prior to this BOTH parties ran a surplus - there was a surplus in every single year from 1947 to 1974. It is perhaps a surprise that the much criticised post war consensus was much more fiscally conservative than new consensus Thatcherism. 2. Prior to the financial crisis the biggest deficit was just under 21 billion. It was higher than this figure in EVERY year of the last conservative government under John Major. Whatever the qualities (or otherwise) of Mrs T, it is difficult to argue that Thatcherism is fiscally conservative. It is equally difficult to demonstrate that one party is more financially prudent than another, but if you look at the data from the second world war until the financial crisis it would indicate that the Labour party has tended to run smaller deficits, although not greatly so. Paul, it''s all "political froth," there is hardly any difference between the two parties.[/quote]

If you believe that Labour are a prudent party then you are totally in denial. Every time in my lifetime a Tory party has come into power it has had a Labour deficit and a recession to deal with whereas in 1997 the Tories bequeated Labour a booming economy which they managed to ruin. In times of good the Tories have always behaved more prudently than Labour who always see an opportunity to spend whether the money is there or not. The Coalition are only spending so much now because of the commitments Labour have made on welfare etc without control or checks on claimant validity. A few years ago 3 million were claiming disability benefits, around 1.5 million have now either voluntary removed themselves from the list or been disqualified. That''s just one example of unnecessary Labour profligacy .

[ricardo 7,385]

[quote user="City1st"]

"One of her major legacies to the world is that other governments followed her policies on privatisation, business and economy, saw their success and implemented those very policies themselves. She generated hope and aspiration throughout the world. That''s what the lefties hate."

 

 

She also ''invented'' penicillin, organised Live Aid and single handedly built the world''s first personal computer

 

 

ps I''m surprised no one mentioned Thatcher''s ashes - that memorable test match when she destroyed the Australians ..... though I don''t doubt Mr Moy will be along with it soon, once Fox news has posted it up on their website

 

 

 

[/quote]Despite your facetiousness City 1ST, she remains a figure of historical significance in 20th Century political history. Something the midgets before and after her time cannot lay claim to.Yes, she divided opinion as did Churchill in the 1930''s but nobody is totally right or totally wrong. History will be the Judge but I suggest her page will be a lot bigger than those of Wilson, Callaghan, Heath and the many others who have followed since.

[Andy Larkin 15]

[quote user="ricardo"]I can''t go along with your premise that Labour were never a Socialist party in practice. When we were children the state owned large parts of the means of production and distribution thanks to the Labour government of 1945/51. For good or ill that was swept away during the 1980''s and 13 yrs of Labour government since then did nothing at all to turn that clock back. I would therefore suggest that the question of public/private ownership has largely been resolved in favour of the latter.[/quote]Ricardo, you no doubt are aware that is virtually impossible, in a democratic society, to re-nationalise what are now private companies no matter what well-minded sentiment would be backing the decision.The cost alone of re-imbursing the shareholders makes the whole venture nigh on impossible. In a non-democratic society it is of course much easier, you can simply take it.Now, with the best will in the world, there is not enough money in the Exchequer''s purse (even though they can find the funds to give The Sainted Margaret a send off) to undertake such an action, despite the glaring failure of these privatisations (witness rising everything everywhere) and despite most newspaper outlets attempts to paint Ted Milliband as a Union stooge, even he knows it would be an impossible task.I believe you will find that this is the reason so many people are defending the NHS against what will inevitably be privatisation… once it''s gone it ain''t ever coming back. You know it. I know it. Anyone with a brain cell and a moderate ability to read should know it too.To offer this up as an endorsement of her policies is disingenuous at best…at worst a mendacious fabrication and one which you should really be above offering.

[ricardo 7,385]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="City1st"]

"One of her major legacies to the world is that other governments followed her policies on privatisation, business and economy, saw their success and implemented those very policies themselves. She generated hope and aspiration throughout the world. That''s what the lefties hate."

 

 

She also ''invented'' penicillin, organised Live Aid and single handedly built the world''s first personal computer

 

 

ps I''m surprised no one mentioned Thatcher''s ashes - that memorable test match when she destroyed the Australians ..... though I don''t doubt Mr Moy will be along with it soon, once Fox news has posted it up on their website

 

 

 

[/quote]Despite your facetiousness City 1ST, she remains a figure of historical significance in 20th Century political history. Something the midgets before and after her time cannot lay claim to.Yes, she divided opinion as did Churchill in the 1930''s but nobody is totally right or totally wrong. History will be the Judge but I suggest her page will be a lot bigger than those of Wilson, Callaghan, Heath and the many others who have followed since.[/quote]

[ricardo 7,385]

[quote user="Andy Larkin"][quote user="ricardo"]I can''t go along with your premise that Labour were never a Socialist party in practice. When we were children the state owned large parts of the means of production and distribution thanks to the Labour government of 1945/51. For good or ill that was swept away during the 1980''s and 13 yrs of Labour government since then did nothing at all to turn that clock back. I would therefore suggest that the question of public/private ownership has largely been resolved in favour of the latter.[/quote]Ricardo, you no doubt are aware that is virtually impossible, in a democratic society, to re-nationalise what are now private companies no matter what well-minded sentiment would be backing the decision.The cost alone of re-imbursing the shareholders makes the whole venture nigh on impossible. In a non-democratic society it is of course much easier, you can simply take it.Now, with the best will in the world, there is not enough money in the Exchequer''s purse (even though they can find the funds to give The Sainted Margaret a send off) to undertake such an action, despite the glaring failure of these privatisations (witness rising everything everywhere) and despite most newspaper outlets attempts to paint Ted Milliband as a Union stooge, even he knows it would be an impossible task.I believe you will find that this is the reason so many people are defending the NHS against what will inevitably be privatisation… once it''s gone it ain''t ever coming back. You know it. I know it. Anyone with a brain cell and a moderate ability to read should know it too.To offer this up as an endorsement of her policies is disingenuous at best…at worst a mendacious fabrication and one which you should really be above offering.[/quote]We seem to be straying a long way off topic Andy but I am willing to grant you the points you have made on re-nationalisation. You may be too young to remember the 50''s but I can assure you the nationalised utilities of the time were not a paragon of cheap prices and wide choice. However I am not prepared to concede your point on the NHS without riposte. Being a person with an incurable illness and one who relies on the NHS  for intermittent treatment all I require is free access to the service I have contributed to for over 45 years and for the best quality that can be provided at an affordable cost to the country. Whether that is by private or public means  matters not one jot to me.The NHS has always been a political football with either party making accusations of underinvestment or being uncaring towards the sick. Unfortunately it suits certain sections of society for it to remain that way. We are often told about how wonderful our doctors and nurse are and with a few notable exceptions that is the way it has been in my experience. However, none of that has stopped the disgraceful abuses that we are hearing about today. They seem to do it much better in other countries where they don''t have the same monolithic institution.

[Andy Larkin 15]

[quote user="ricardo"]Being a person with an incurable illness and one who relies on the NHS for intermittent treatment all I require is free access to the service I have contributed to for over 45 years and for the best quality that can be provided at an affordable cost to the country. Whether that is by private or public means matters not one jot to me.[/quote]That bold point above… that is why we will always differ Ricardo. You and I may be able to afford it should the awful day come… others? Hmmmmmmm.  What to do with the others? Those that can''t. I don''t see Virgin, BUPA or Circle etc being over charitable to those that couldn''t pay, they''ve got profits to maintain after all.That''s why I can''t ever fathom out a Tory and their principles.All the same, thanks for accepting the earlier point and sorry to hear of your illness. I hope my beloved NHS continue to do the best they can for you.

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="ricardo"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="ricardo"]Well I''ve just come back from a pleasant day out in North Norfolk with Mrs R and found the Mrs T thread still going. Lots of very interesting and well thought out points raised by people from both ends of the political spectrum.Quite plainly she was a woman who polarized opinions.Despite the protestations from the left there can be no doubting that she was one of the major political figures of the 20th century. She won the big arguments of the day and changed the political landscape. The measure of the woman can be seen by the shadow she cast and of our subsequent leaders have had to define themselves by it. That should be tribute enough for anyone.[/quote]

 

 

ricardo, I have seen no attempt by anyone serious on the left to portray Thatcher as an insignificant figure. You are right that all the British political leaders who have followed have been Thatcher''s Children. That is not the argument. The argument is whether she changed the political landscape because she was right, or because she destroyed the concept of altruism by pandering to people''s baser, most selfish instincts..

[/quote]The big division of the day was between Socialism and CapitalismShe quite plainly won that argument when Tony Blair ditched Clause 4."Let me give you my vision. A mans right to work as he will, to spend what he earns, to own property, to have the State as a servant and not as a master- These are the British inheritance. They are the essence of a free economy and on that freedom all other freedoms depend".Margeret Thatcher 10th Oct 1975It might suit you to frame the argument as one between selfishness and altruism but as someone said earlier in the thread, The Good Samaritan was not only good but also wealthy.

[/quote]

 

That is nonsense, ricardo. The Labour party may have had Clause 4 in its constitution but no-one took it seriously. On the occasions I voted Labour I didn''t for a moment expect it to implement socialist policies. I hoped it would manage capitalism with a bit more humanity than did the Tories. That was all. Labour was never a socialist party in practice. It was, like similar parties in continental Europe, social democratic. Capitalism, for good or ill, was accepted by all British mainstream parties. More than that, there was a post-war consensus throughout western Europe that was effectively social democratic. Even right-wing parties in Germany, for example, and France accepted that and implemented policies accordingly. This was partly because that was pragmatically seen as the best way of keeping the various national communist parties weak, but also because it seemed the moral way to govern a country.You are right that I do frame the argument (not entirely but...) as being between altruism and selfishness. What I don''t do (and I recognise that Thatcher quote about the Good Samaritan) is to see money as being the only means through which people can act altruistically. It was typical of Thatcher that she saw it that way rather than being able to imagine the altruism and selflessness that can come through a sense of community. You can be a Good Samaritan without a penny in your pocket.I grew up in a Norwich which still had bomb sites and rationing on some items of food, but no German occupying forces. At the time I put that done in part to altruism and a sense of community. And still do.

[/quote]I grew up in that same Norwich, Purple but I would suggest the reason there were no occupying German forces had very little to do with altruism and a sense of community. I wouldn''t deny for a minute that a threat to our national existence didn''t engender a feeling of all pulling together but it played a very minor part in defeating the enemy in the field. You and I are of a similar age and no doubt we both played soldiers on those Norwich bombsites reveling as youngsters do in the fact that we had beaten Hitler. It wasn''t until I was much older and having read a lot more that I found that the truth of the matter was somewhat different. Without wishing to denigrate the part played by our parents generation, in large part it was Russian lives and American money that were instrumental in our victory.I can''t go along with your premise that Labour were never a Socialist party in practice. When we were children the state owned large parts of the means of production and distribution thanks to the Labour government of 1945/51. For good or ill that was swept away during the 1980''s and 13 yrs of Labour government since then did nothing at all to turn that clock back. I would therefore suggest that the question of public/private ownership has largely been resolved in favour of the latter.Then we come to the Cold War and the confrontation with Soviet expansion. Siren voices on the left predicted disaster and supported The Geenham Common protests and Nuclear disarmament. Well, we all know how that turned out with the collapse of the Soviet Union through a combination of that stance and the systems own internal contradictions.Then we come to the nub of the matter that the left still find hard to swallow. The Wilson/Callaghan governments of the 1970''s were unable to find a solution to the industrial problems of that era. If there was an easy way out of it you have to ask yourself why beer and sandwiches in late night meetings in Downing St with the Union leaders were unable to find it. The truth of the matter is that certain sections of the left wanted a confrontation with the succeeding Tory government because they thought they could win it. I listened to an Interview with Neil Kinnock a couple of days ago and he admitted that Scargill could have had a comprise agreement with Thatcher but wanted complete victory. That didn''t end too well for him and his members did it? I don''t dispute that de-industrialisation was handled better in other countries but for a variety of reasons that didn''t work here. I suggest a reading of Correlli Barnett''s "The Lost Victory" will explain the background to that, far better than I can.So for all those reasons my contention remains that more good came out of the Thatcher years than bad. Nothing is all black or all white but I have yet to hear an convincing argument for removing the sweeping changes of the Thatcher years and the failure of 13 years of Labour to do anything about it would suggest that on that score I am right.

[/quote]

 

You are, of course, right about who really won the war. I did only say altruism and a sense of community played a part. My point was that Thatcher only ever saw altruism (the Good Samaritan) in financial terms, which speaks volumes about her way of looking at the world. I was using the extreme example of wartime to show that altruism - which is linked to a sense of community - can take many forms, and doesn''t always need money to facilitate it. I believe that in decades to come she will be seen as an aberration in the development of politics and the way people behave to one another. But we won''t be around to argue the toss about that, unless we are looking down from some celestial playground.

[ricardo 7,385]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="ricardo"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="ricardo"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="ricardo"]Well I''ve just come back from a pleasant day out in North Norfolk with Mrs R and found the Mrs T thread still going. Lots of very interesting and well thought out points raised by people from both ends of the political spectrum.Quite plainly she was a woman who polarized opinions.Despite the protestations from the left there can be no doubting that she was one of the major political figures of the 20th century. She won the big arguments of the day and changed the political landscape. The measure of the woman can be seen by the shadow she cast and of our subsequent leaders have had to define themselves by it. That should be tribute enough for anyone.[/quote]

 

 

ricardo, I have seen no attempt by anyone serious on the left to portray Thatcher as an insignificant figure. You are right that all the British political leaders who have followed have been Thatcher''s Children. That is not the argument. The argument is whether she changed the political landscape because she was right, or because she destroyed the concept of altruism by pandering to people''s baser, most selfish instincts..

[/quote]The big division of the day was between Socialism and CapitalismShe quite plainly won that argument when Tony Blair ditched Clause 4."Let me give you my vision. A mans right to work as he will, to spend what he earns, to own property, to have the State as a servant and not as a master- These are the British inheritance. They are the essence of a free economy and on that freedom all other freedoms depend".Margeret Thatcher 10th Oct 1975It might suit you to frame the argument as one between selfishness and altruism but as someone said earlier in the thread, The Good Samaritan was not only good but also wealthy.

[/quote]

 

That is nonsense, ricardo. The Labour party may have had Clause 4 in its constitution but no-one took it seriously. On the occasions I voted Labour I didn''t for a moment expect it to implement socialist policies. I hoped it would manage capitalism with a bit more humanity than did the Tories. That was all. Labour was never a socialist party in practice. It was, like similar parties in continental Europe, social democratic. Capitalism, for good or ill, was accepted by all British mainstream parties. More than that, there was a post-war consensus throughout western Europe that was effectively social democratic. Even right-wing parties in Germany, for example, and France accepted that and implemented policies accordingly. This was partly because that was pragmatically seen as the best way of keeping the various national communist parties weak, but also because it seemed the moral way to govern a country.You are right that I do frame the argument (not entirely but...) as being between altruism and selfishness. What I don''t do (and I recognise that Thatcher quote about the Good Samaritan) is to see money as being the only means through which people can act altruistically. It was typical of Thatcher that she saw it that way rather than being able to imagine the altruism and selflessness that can come through a sense of community. You can be a Good Samaritan without a penny in your pocket.I grew up in a Norwich which still had bomb sites and rationing on some items of food, but no German occupying forces. At the time I put that done in part to altruism and a sense of community. And still do.

[/quote]I grew up in that same Norwich, Purple but I would suggest the reason there were no occupying German forces had very little to do with altruism and a sense of community. I wouldn''t deny for a minute that a threat to our national existence didn''t engender a feeling of all pulling together but it played a very minor part in defeating the enemy in the field. You and I are of a similar age and no doubt we both played soldiers on those Norwich bombsites reveling as youngsters do in the fact that we had beaten Hitler. It wasn''t until I was much older and having read a lot more that I found that the truth of the matter was somewhat different. Without wishing to denigrate the part played by our parents generation, in large part it was Russian lives and American money that were instrumental in our victory.I can''t go along with your premise that Labour were never a Socialist party in practice. When we were children the state owned large parts of the means of production and distribution thanks to the Labour government of 1945/51. For good or ill that was swept away during the 1980''s and 13 yrs of Labour government since then did nothing at all to turn that clock back. I would therefore suggest that the question of public/private ownership has largely been resolved in favour of the latter.Then we come to the Cold War and the confrontation with Soviet expansion. Siren voices on the left predicted disaster and supported The Geenham Common protests and Nuclear disarmament. Well, we all know how that turned out with the collapse of the Soviet Union through a combination of that stance and the systems own internal contradictions.Then we come to the nub of the matter that the left still find hard to swallow. The Wilson/Callaghan governments of the 1970''s were unable to find a solution to the industrial problems of that era. If there was an easy way out of it you have to ask yourself why beer and sandwiches in late night meetings in Downing St with the Union leaders were unable to find it. The truth of the matter is that certain sections of the left wanted a confrontation with the succeeding Tory government because they thought they could win it. I listened to an Interview with Neil Kinnock a couple of days ago and he admitted that Scargill could have had a comprise agreement with Thatcher but wanted complete victory. That didn''t end too well for him and his members did it? I don''t dispute that de-industrialisation was handled better in other countries but for a variety of reasons that didn''t work here. I suggest a reading of Correlli Barnett''s "The Lost Victory" will explain the background to that, far better than I can.So for all those reasons my contention remains that more good came out of the Thatcher years than bad. Nothing is all black or all white but I have yet to hear an convincing argument for removing the sweeping changes of the Thatcher years and the failure of 13 years of Labour to do anything about it would suggest that on that score I am right.

[/quote]

 

You are, of course, right about who really won the war. I did only say altruism and a sense of community played a part. My point was that Thatcher only ever saw altruism (the Good Samaritan) in financial terms, which speaks volumes about her way of looking at the world. I was using the extreme example of wartime to show that altruism - which is linked to a sense of community - can take many forms, and doesn''t always need money to facilitate it. I believe that in decades to come she will be seen as an aberration in the development of politics and the way people behave to one another. But we won''t be around to argue the toss about that, unless we are looking down from some celestial playground.

[/quote]Ahh, and there is another whole debate we could have Purple but best we save that for another time.Thanks very much for your well reasoned contributions to this thread Purple. As you rightly comment some things will be seen clearer with a longer perspective. The fact that this thread has taken us all the way back to rationing and playing on bombsites has brought back a lot of memories for me. Thanks again for your comments, we must do this again sometime.[:D]

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="ricardo"]

Ahh, and there is another whole debate we could have Purple but best we save that for another time.Thanks very much for your well reasoned contributions to this thread Purple. As you rightly comment some things will be seen clearer with a longer perspective. The fact that this thread has taken us all the way back to rationing and playing on bombsites has brought back a lot of memories for me. Thanks again for your comments, we must do this again sometime.[:D][/quote]And you tell kids that today and they won''t believe you!Thanks to you, too, ricardo.

[ricardo 7,385]

[quote user="Andy Larkin"][quote user="ricardo"]Being a person with an incurable illness and one who relies on the NHS for intermittent treatment all I require is free access to the service I have contributed to for over 45 years and for the best quality that can be provided at an affordable cost to the country. Whether that is by private or public means matters not one jot to me.[/quote]That bold point above… that is why we will always differ Ricardo. You and I may be able to afford it should the awful day come… others? Hmmmmmmm.  What to do with the others? Those that can''t. I don''t see Virgin, BUPA or Circle etc being over charitable to those that couldn''t pay, they''ve got profits to maintain after all.That''s why I can''t ever fathom out a Tory and their principles.All the same, thanks for accepting the earlier point and sorry to hear of your illness. I hope my beloved NHS continue to do the best they can for you.[/quote]Thanks for your comments and best wishes Andy. I don''t see why the public/private argument should be such a barrier between us. What should matter is adequate provision for all at a cost we can afford. Yes, I have experienced both public and private medical treatment and have had largely good experiences with either. My point is that if on the continent they can work a health service open to rich and poor alike but without being a political football, why can''t we do it here? My suspicion is that as with many public bodies there are too many vested interests that oppose change and from a political perspective it suits those interests to keep it that way.

[Badger 2,405]

Paul, you seem to misunderstand my point.

1. I said that NEITHER party has been prudent (i.e. regularly run surpluses) since 1974: before then BOTH parties did.

2. I added that since 1974, the Conservatives have run a surplus on 3 occasions and the Labour party of 4 occasions.

3. Finally I pointed out that prior to the financial crisis, the biggest deficit run by the last labour government was smaller than smallest deficit John major''s last government managed to run.

These are simply statements of fact.

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="Andy Larkin"][quote user="ricardo"]Being a person with an incurable illness and one who relies on the NHS for intermittent treatment all I require is free access to the service I have contributed to for over 45 years and for the best quality that can be provided at an affordable cost to the country. Whether that is by private or public means matters not one jot to me.
[/quote]

That bold point above… that is why we will always differ Ricardo.

You and I may be able to afford it should the awful day come… others? Hmmmmmmm.  What to do with the others? Those that can''t. I don''t see Virgin, BUPA or Circle etc being over charitable to those that couldn''t pay, they''ve got profits to maintain after all.

That''s why I can''t ever fathom out a Tory and their principles.

All the same, thanks for accepting the earlier point and sorry to hear of your illness. I hope my beloved NHS continue to do the best they can for you.
[/quote]

You''ve made an automatic lefty assumption that private means more costly which I certainly do not agree would necessarily be the case.  The NHS currently is a very expensive monolithic bottomless pit which in many cases has failed patients... eg: Stafford.  Privatisation for a start would mean an end to health-tourism which would probably save billions in unnecessary expenditure on people with no right to health access but who currently abuse our system because of our lax controls.