The Lady's not for turning !!!

[DodgyAgent]

Remember the population is significantly higher now than when rail was first privitised. Its also a whole heck of a lot more expensive! A lot of people use it just out of necessity rather than want. I don't think the rail network is currently a success in England at all. Would it be worse under government control? Probably as the profits would not be re-invested.

Good an attempt to argue a point. My own rule on how I judge how efficient a service is or is likely to be is to ask:

1. Does a monopoly exist? if so how much of one?
2. Do customers have a choice?
3. How accountable are the service providers?

In the case of rail there is little difference between a private and a public run company. as rail is a monopoly it will be run first and foremost for the people that run it (govt or shareholder take your pick- at least shareholders spend the money on flash cars which creates jobs whereas govts use it to put more people out of work), secondly it will be run for the benefit of those who work in it and lastly it will be run for the benefit of the paying customer.

[Bagpuss]

It certainly does seem Thatcherism is like a religion for some, what cannot be backed up with fact as a effective choice is taken in blind faith as being the only divine option and therefore worthy nonetheless. It is impossible to argue against such 'logic' in the same way you can't argue with a Christian fundamentalist

[DodgyAgent]

I think I can answer that in a fairly concise way. Thatcher's view of the world seemed to be that there is indeed "no such thing as society" and that personal freedom is all even if it's exercised at the expense of others. Whilst I'm not against freedom and I'm no fan of the control freakery of the current regime, she took it too far.

Perhaps it's a step too far to blame it all on her - after all she may have just been reflecting a particularly nasty and selfish streak in our nation. She was happy to tell lies and mislead people if she thought she could get away with it - again not unique for a politician, but not a good role model either - unless you are/were a fan of the "it's only wrong if you get caught" mentality she has.

As for "offering an alternative contemporary vision as to what should have happened in the 80s" - a stable economy not prone to booms and recessions and some recognition that in a market based economy, unemployment is the biggest way of excluding people from society (which you don't care about if you don't think there is any such thing).

As for the charge of misogyny - Thatcher was really only a nominal woman - she never made any reference to it and certainly did nothing much to advance the cause of women in general, so hating her for her version of womanhood could hardly be described as misogyny.

I can't forgive her Philistine approach to the Arts and Education, or her introduction of ridiculous sound-bites (like her misquoting of St Francis) that are trotted out to this day.

As for the Falklands, I agree the government had to act, but it's a shame they used our forces (and money) to sort out a mess that they created and were warned about at the time. All the gung ho triumphalists seem to forget this.

What is interesting about one of your points (the encouragement of greed) is that you like many of the other middle class elite believed that people who lived on council estates had no right to self determination. No right to buy their own houses, no right to work on a trading floor in the city and earn "shedloads". the whole tone of the points that you make are of a whining elitist (arts grants).

Your whole notion of "personal freedom" (though you neatly leave out the "personal responsibility" that she always said is carried with it), is presumably that people are automatically going to abuse such privilige.
I presume that you enjoy such "personal freedoms" and that you carry those freedoms with responsibility, so why shouldnt others do likewise?

Again you are "picking". You accuse her of lying as if this is a unique charecteristic of hers!! she seemed to me to be no more of a liar than any other individual.

Unemployment was a consequence of people like you who either supported the pre Thatcher status quo or turned a blind eye to it. Just how long could we as a country carry on supporting huge companies building and supplying things that were either not wanted or were hugely inefficient? It is Janet and John economics. We could of course have become like North Korea and used our nuclear weapons to blackmail the rest of the world into giving us handouts.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

It certainly does seem Thatcherism is like a religion for some, what cannot be backed up with fact as a effective choice is taken in blind faith as being the only divine option and therefore worthy nonetheless. It is impossible to argue against such 'logic' in the same way you can't argue with a Christian fundamentalist

Indeed, and anyone who simply didn't (and doesn't) agree with her (and their) world view must be (insert list of insults here) - come to think of it, that's another legacy of hers: all intelligent debate stifled in favour of populist propaganda, sound bites and total lack of respect for an opposing opinion, no matter how earnestly held.

[DodgyAgent]

It certainly does seem Thatcherism is like a religion for some, what cannot be backed up with fact as a effective choice is taken in blind faith as being the only divine option and therefore worthy nonetheless. It is impossible to argue against such 'logic' in the same way you can't argue with a Christian fundamentalist

You havent actually put up a single coherent argument that challenges the central foundation of her policies (I could do a better job of it than you even though I am a fan of hers). What you have done is "spun" a few cliches in order to invoke negative emotions about Thatcher - which doesnt fool anyone. You have also picked on what are very much the side issues of what happened in her days in power and again hopelessly tried to spin these into major policy disasters of Thatcherism.

Now all you can do is whine that everyone here are no more than "bone in the nose rednecks". You have not even come close to challenging her which is why no one takes your rambling cliches seriously enough to listen.

If you are going to make a point, then make it. Try using examples and logic for once.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

What is interesting about one of your points (the encouragement of greed) is that you like many of the other middle class elite believed that people who lived on council estates had no right to self determination. No right to buy their own houses, no right to work on a trading floor in the city and earn "shedloads". the whole tone of the points that you make are of a whining elitist (arts grants).

All assumptions (and accusations) made by what you think you know about me and how I think rather than anything I actually said.

Your whole notion of "personal freedom" (though you neatly leave out the "personal responsibility" that she always said is carried with it), is presumably that people are automatically going to abuse such privilige.ions
I presume that you enjoy such "personal freedoms" and that you carry those freedoms with responsibility, so why shouldnt others do likewise?

I never suggested any of this - but then you did at least say presumably - you're right, it's all presumption by you.

Again you are "picking". You accuse her of lying as if this is a unique charecteristic (sic) of hers!! she seemed to me to be no more of a liar than any other individual.

Which bit of "She was happy to tell lies and mislead people if she thought she could get away with it - again not unique for a politician" is me making it an accusation unique to Thatcher?

Unemployment was a consequence of people like you

Er, no.

who either supported the pre Thatcher status quo or turned a blind eye to it. Just how long could we as a country carry on supporting huge companies building and supplying things that were either not wanted or were hugely inefficient? It is Janet and John economics. We could of course have become like North Korea and used our nuclear weapons to blackmail the rest of the world into giving us handouts.

Now I think you are wondering from the point a bit. At no point have I sought to suggest that we'd have been better off with a Totalitarian Communist government but full marks for a politician's style straw man demolition of yet another thing I didn't say based on your own set of prejudices and assumptions.

I didn't like most of what Thatcher did, or the atmosphere in which it was done. If it makes it easier for her apologists to write me off as a whining middle class elitist commie than accepting I have a right to an opinion, that's fine by me, because it kinda proves my point.

[DodgyAgent]

All assumptions (and accusations) made by what you think you know about me and how I think rather than anything I actually said.


I never suggested any of this - but then you did at least say presumably - you're right, it's all presumption by you.

Which bit of "She was happy to tell lies and mislead people if she thought she could get away with it - again not unique for a politician" is me making it an accusation unique to Thatcher?


Er, no.

Now I think you are wondering from the point a bit. At no point have I sought to suggest that we'd have been better off with a Totalitarian Communist government but full marks for a politician's style straw man demolition of yet another thing I didn't say based on your own set of prejudices and assumptions.

I didn't like most of what Thatcher did, or the atmosphere in which it was done. If it makes it easier for her apologists to write me off as a whining middle class elitist commie than accepting I have a right to an opinion, that's fine by me, because it kinda proves my point.

If you fail to argue anything then I will make assumptions. The more outrageous these assumptions get the easier they should be for you to counter. The less willing you are to argue a point, and instead use cliches to invoke emotions, the less seriously you will be taken.

[Bagpuss]

You havent actually put up a single coherent argument that challenges the central foundation of her policies

Her central policy was to run the UK as a monetarist experiment. It's been proved not to have not worked, even Milton Friedman has admited his theory was flawed and leads to boom and bust, which it did. You chose to ignore that, if you belive it to be false I sugest you take it up with Mr Friedman's estate, they could explain in far better detail where it all went wrong.

Where would you like me to go next, stealth taxing?

[DimPrawn]

Maggie could take all you lefties here with one swing of her handbag, AND give the Argies a right SLAP at the same time, whilst simultaneously kicking Scargill in the goolies.



HTH

[Bagpuss]

Maggie could take all you lefties here with one swing of her handbag, AND give the Argies a right SLAP at the same time, whilst simultaneously kicking Scargill in the goolies.



HTH

But she wont be the one pissing on my grave