Thatcher in hospital for checks

[DodgyAgent]

There were no underclass before the Thatcher years, you can pretend all you like that everywhere she shat upon roses popped up, like some kind of facist Bambi, by that's not borne by the evidence. If you believe in natural levels of unemployment, as the Thatcher mantra did, then crime and dependancy are bound to rise, which they did.

It's not clever to dismantle something without the ideas of what to replace it with. The market cannot deliver everything, and not everyone can be an entrepreneur. Adam Smith realised that 2 centuries ago, and he was hardly a communist, just someone with less ego and more common sense

Actually Bagpuss I think you are quite right. What you seem to neatly forget is that it was socialism that brought the problems to us in the first place, and that had it not been for maggie then there would have been a much bigger underclass now than there is.

The challenge that we now face is how we integrate social values into a society that is so harshly measured by markets. Maggie got her bit right by removing the barriers to wealth creation, but the socuialists still run their services and welfare feifdoms for their own benefits.

The left can spin the negatives as they like but few would argue that the UK isnt hugely better off thanks to her.

[DodgyAgent]

in the long term anyway the main legacy now is the underclass.

No, the main legacy now is your fat bank balance.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

The left can spin the negatives as they like but few would argue that the UK isnt hugely better off thanks to her.

Few amongst the cosy group of like-minded people you choose to ask maybe - I know plenty of people who don't see it that way - I guess it's a question of who you choose to associate with. In any case, being in a majority doesn't automatically make it right, the majority probably favoured racism, slavery, and bear-baiting at various stages in our development.

[DimPrawn]

In any case, being in a majority doesn't automatically make it right, the majority probably favoured racism, slavery, and bear-baiting at various stages in our development.

Was that a recent CUK poll I missed?

[DodgyAgent]

Few amongst the cosy group of like-minded people you choose to ask maybe - I know plenty of people who don't see it that way - I guess it's a question of who you choose to associate with. In any case, being in a majority doesn't automatically make it right, the majority probably favoured racism, slavery, and bear-baiting at various stages in our development.

Well you for one are a clear beneficiary, and I suppose the other losers are the spongers working in state run industries that had to be supported by the rest of the population.

There again pre Thatcher the whole country (majority) was being run for the benefit of few (the state Industries).

It is interesting how so many of the fat cats who themselves have so prospered from the freedom that Thatcher won for them are so ready to dump their guilt on her.

[Bagpuss]

Actually Bagpuss I think you are quite right. What you seem to neatly forget is that it was socialism that brought the problems to us in the first place, and that had it not been for maggie then there would have been a much bigger underclass now than there is.

The challenge that we now face is how we integrate social values into a society that is so harshly measured by markets. Maggie got her bit right by removing the barriers to wealth creation, but the socuialists still run their services and welfare feifdoms for their own benefits.

The left can spin the negatives as they like but few would argue that the UK isnt hugely better off thanks to her.

You guys are too sensitive, just because I don't agree with the methods employed, does not equate to wanting to live in a unionised socialist country.

There was too much experimenting taking place in the Maggie era, and not enough long-term thought. Is it not possible to take the best elements of all mantras and build something that works? rather than obliterate something out of spite? because neither extreem philosophy ever will work.

I can see myself voting for Cameron, and that's because he seems willing to consider all angles rather than be led by some political dogma that has had it's day, of course that could be an act

[DodgyAgent]

You guys are too sensitive, just because I don't agree with the methods employed, does not equate to wanting to live in a unionised socialist country.

There was too much experimenting taking place in the Maggie era, and not enough long-term thought. Is it not possible to take the best elements of all mantras and build something that works? rather than obliterate something out of spite? because neither extreem philosophy ever will work.

I can see myself voting for Cameron, and that's because he seems willing to consider all angles rather than be led by some political dogma that has had it's day, of course that could be an act

I think you may be right about Cameron, and again in hindsight Maggie should have done things differently (massive public spending not on welfare but on stimulating the economy for a start). However there was no long term option for her at the time.

[shaunbhoy]

Is it not possible to take the best elements of all mantras and build something that works?

Apparently History teaches us it is not.... but it is possible to achieve the worst of all worlds. They call it New Labour!

[Peoplesoft bloke]

Well you for one are a clear beneficiary, and I suppose the other losers are the spongers working in state run industries that had to be supported by the rest of the population.

There again pre Thatcher the whole country (majority) was being run for the benefit of few (the state Industries).

It is interesting how so many of the fat cats who themselves have so prospered from the freedom that Thatcher won for them are so ready to dump their guilt on her.

I don't agree I'm a clear beneficiary (or for that matter a fat cat) - of course it's unknowable what things would have been like if we hadn't had her, but I've had two periods of unemployment and (relative) poverty and came close to losing my house. The first was under Thatcher, the second under John Major - that wasn't "freedom". Speaking personally, I've fared better under Labour, although I didn't vote Labour last time and I won't be doing so next time.

[DodgyAgent]

I don't agree I'm a clear beneficiary (or for that matter a fat cat) - of course it's unknowable what things would have been like if we hadn't had her, but I've had two periods of unemployment and (relative) poverty and came close to losing my house. The first was under Thatcher, the second under John Major - that wasn't "freedom". Speaking personally, I've fared better under Labour, although I didn't vote Labour last time and I won't be doing so next time.

presumably you are a contractor, so you are therefore a fat cat (ask any socialist)