Hatfield has last laugh on Thatcher.

nickmason

geoffky wrote: »

some of you remind me of the council house buyers of the times...thought they were tories because they had bought a council house.
.when in reality the tories are there to conserve the wealth and power of the elite....
they could not give a toss about mr and mrs average...anyone who thinks different is kidding themselves..

Oh sod it, I'm going to rise to the bait.

You're talking absolute b******t. I have no idea where your generalisation about selfishness comes from; I presume you mean only the professional politicians rather than the supporters?

Almost every Tory I know involved in politics is permanently asking the question "what can we do for (all the) people?"

Almost every lefty I know involved in politics is permanently asking the question "what would we like to do for (all the) people?" (That's when they're not asking "What must we appear/be seen to be doing?" - but I'll be charitable and blame that on them being in power).

Dreaming - "would we like" - with no worry about resources is easy - but callous and irresponsible when you tell the people it's okay, that they can have their cake and eat it.

"What can we do" is a much more difficult question because it involves costing, and balancing preferences. But because it has some bearing on realistic policy making, it does have the benefit of being real.

The nasty party wasn't the one that told it how it was - it's the one that tells people "don't worry, someone else can pay".

It's not the Tories who don't give a toss.

beingjdc

nickmason wrote: »

One of the advantages that the Conservative party has had (and one that Tony Blair saw and adopted) is that it doesn't have a core ideology. It "owned" the idea of what matters is what works long before TB took it

Come off it Nick! The Thatcher government was deeply ideological, whether it was privatising stuff, changing the tax system, selling off council houses, or banning public agencies from talking about gayness.

Argue about whether those measures were right or wrong, but don't pretend they were about 'what works' (Deng Xiaoping might have prior claim on that political position anyway...)

A._Badger

Tribulation wrote: »

Scargill was branded a nutter by the press. But looking back, I think almost every single thing he warned about came true.

And what do you think would have been the outcome if he had defeated the government?

Which aspects of living in an impoversished Marxist state would you most have enjoyed ?

And yes, I did hit 'thanks'; in error.

nickmason

Tribulation wrote: »

Wonders how much money has been spent since on benefits etc for the aftermath of the numerous communities that she completely destroyed.

Very good point. Huge amounts of money has been pumped into the north.
Obviously we should have kept subbing them (and bankrupting Britain) until - oh I don't know, 25 years later we might have been able to find some of them jobs.

Eventually of course, we'd have closed the pits, and - whaddyaknow - had to pay them lots of benefits. Seems like a pretty slow death to me (apart from those who's death was hurried by pit-related ill health, of course).

geoffky

nickmason wrote: »

Oh sod it, I'm going to rise to the bait.

You're talking absolute b******t. I have no idea where your generalisation about selfishness comes from; I presume you mean only the professional politicians rather than the supporters?

Almost every Tory I know involved in politics is permanently asking the question "what can we do for (all the) people?"

Almost every lefty I know involved in politics is permanently asking the question "what would we like to do for (all the) people?" (That's when they're not asking "What must we appear/be seen to be doing?" - but I'll be charitable and blame that on them being in power).

Dreaming - "would we like" - with no worry about resources is easy - but callous and irresponsible when you tell the people it's okay, that they can have their cake and eat it.

"What can we do" is a much more difficult question because it involves costing, and balancing preferences. But because it has some bearing on realistic policy making, it does have the benefit of being real.

The nasty party wasn't the one that told it how it was - it's the one that tells people "don't worry, someone else can pay".

It's not the Tories who don't give a toss.

Just look at all the old Etonians and tell me they care for mr and mrs average or any politician for that matter they are all pigs at the trough..... hang the swines

nickmason

beingjdc wrote: »

Come off it Nick! The Thatcher government was deeply ideological, whether it was privatising stuff, changing the tax system, selling off council houses, or banning public agencies from talking about gayness.

Argue about whether those measures were right or wrong, but don't pretend they were about 'what works' (Deng Xiaoping might have prior claim on that political position anyway...)

Sorry JDC, I agree with your points, but they all strike me (possibly excepting the gay point) as being tactical policies rather than a core ideology. I was looking at a longer term perspective - not just the Thatcher government, but Conservatives generally. It's a pretty "gcse-level" and sweeping observation, I
recognise. But I do think that they were about tactical solutions, rather than about a core philosophy.

Nice observation re Deng Xiaoping. :mad:

dervish

geoffky wrote: »

Just look at all the old Etonians and tell me they care for mr and mrs average or any politician for that matter they are all pigs at the trough..... hang the swines

Your logic dictates that you must also be an old Etonian (if yuor last 3 words are anything to go by)...

How ironic that people criticise the upper classes as being derisive, uncaring and cruel towardsw the lower classes - AND THEN DEMONSTRATE THE SAME QUALITIES THESMELVES....!

bo_drinker

Started a can of worms here, I love it. Just the mention of that T word makes me fkn seethe (sp?)

Tribulation

A._Badger wrote: »

And yes, I did hit 'thanks'; in error.

Favour returned

tuggy12

Dearest Margaret.............

Best thing that ever happened to the UK.

We would have been bankrupt long before now without her.