Thatcher's Approach to Government Power ...

[Drummond]

By way of introduction - and for clarification, and candour - I should begin this by saying what prompts this thread. It has two basic 'causes'.

One ... FJ has long-since claimed to be 'Thatcherite', and, simultaneous to that, criticises me for being pro-'Big Government'. It's high time this issue was laid to rest, at least, to the extent it can be (or rather, will be 'allowed' to be .. ?).

Two ... I received a PM which prompted me to supply clarification about Margaret Thatcher. That PM sender has suggested that I post in thread-form what I sent in reply. So ... edited to be suitable for thread posting, I'm doing so. Here's what I had to say ....

Margaret Thatcher as Premier, on the one hand, wanted to promote self-reliance. This is because, in the true Capitalist spirit, she hated 'dependence cultures' ... of the type her opposition in the Labour Party wanted, where people became too reliant on State handouts and not nearly interested enough in bettering themselves, and others, through hard graft and the entrepreneurial spirit. She believed in that with a passion.

She also tried to spark renewed interest in the 'profit' concept, through activities of private business. She de-nationalised water, electricity, gas companies .. previously State owned, sold off, to be run by private Companies ... and then encouraged ordinary citizens to own shares in those Companies, so as to (a) buy into their profits, and (b) to encourage them to be pleased that such Companies would strive to succeed, on their OWN merits. HOWEVER .. she also understood that such Companies, since they provided essential services, needed to be regulated. Laws were passed guaranteeing that they had to work and thrive subject to strict standards.

Margaret Thatcher, though passionately believing in private enterprise and the striving of people to rely on themselves, also understood that the machinery of Big Government sometimes had to facilitate this. Nowhere was this clearer than in Trade Union circles .. who, during the winter of 1978-'79, were subjecting industries and services to wave after wave of crippling strikes. As she saw it (and, as was only TRUE ..) the Unions had freedoms which they were abusing, and in the abusing, were strangling our society's very ability to remain viable. Against this background, and with the general Public sick of strikes, she was elected into power with a landslide vote.

She did what she had to do. She passed laws curbing Union freedoms. They were swingeing. They were tough in the extreme, certainly by previous standards. She used Big Government powers to deal with the problem.

Margaret believed in private enterprise, but she also believed that there were times when Governmental powers had to step in to nudge things in the right direction. She did, strongly, believe in civic justice and even State-facilitated moral standards.

Here's an example --

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28


Section 28 or Clause 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 caused the addition of Section 2A to the Local Government Act 1986, which affected England, Wales and Scotland. The amendment was enacted on 24 May 1988, and stated that a local authority "shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality" or "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship".

Reports said that nothing like it had been tried in a hundred years. But Margaret had no qualms about using legislation, or 'Big Government', to determine her standards of proper moral direction.

She also believed in civic responsibility, that all people contributed to Society, so should take a form of collective responsibility. She passed a law to make mandatory the 'Community Charge', or later known (exclusively so, these days) as 'The Poll Tax'. Under it, every citizen of working age paid tax towards society, on an individual-by-individual basis, this paid to local Councils for the services they provided (e.g police, fire, ambulance services, waste collection ..). This was contrary to the older system, where households, AS households, paid that tax ... Margaret saw this as needing to be a person-by-person tax. Three household members of earning age ... so, three collections of tax ...

THAT measure was deeply unpopular here .. we actually had riots because of it. These days, we apply the older principle of one tax collection per household.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_Tax_Riots


The Poll Tax Riots were a series of riots in British towns and cities during protests against the poll tax (officially known as the "Community Charge"), introduced by the Conservative government of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. The largest protest occurred in central London on Saturday, 31 March 1990, shortly before the tax was due to come into force in England and Wales. The disorder in London arose from a morning demonstration which became a violent confrontation between the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), protesters and other activist demonstrators, which ended in rampaging and looting until 3a.m.

The Thatcher government had long promised to replace domestic rates, which were unpopular, especially among Conservative voters. They were seen by many as an unfair way of raising revenue for local councils. Levied on houses rather than people, the rates meant that someone living alone had to pay the same amount towards the cost of local services as a multi-person household living next door, even though the latter had a much larger combined income and were using more services. The proposed replacement was a flat-rate per capita Community Charge. The new Charge was widely called a "poll tax" and was introduced in Scotland in 1989 and in England and Wales a year later. The Charge proved extremely unpopular: while students and the unemployed only had to pay a small percentage, large families using a relatively small house saw their charges go up considerably, and the tax was thus accused of saving the rich money and moving the expenses onto the poor.

Confirming the basis for the tax:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Charge


The Community Charge (commonly known as the "poll tax") was a system of taxation introduced in replacement of domestic rates in Scotland from 1989, prior to its introduction in England and Wales from 1990. It provided for a single flat-rate per-capita tax on every adult, at a rate set by the local authority.

Conservative Governments are, traditionally, 'anti tax'. They prefer to levy the minimum possible, instead believing that private enterprise can and should generate wealth, negating the need for great tax hikes. Nonetheless, Margaret had no qualms about raising taxes she saw as 'just'. The principle, and raising, of a poll tax was eminently fair in Margaret's view.

She DEregulated when she could, preferring to. But, she also REGULATED when she saw it as necessary. As a principle, she was no fan of Big Government. But, she also knew that it had its place, as something she might (and did) have to use to correct wrongs. She was idealistic, but would defer to pragmatism once the need for it was perceived.

Conservatives, certainly here in the UK, will willingly institute austerity programmes, and see it as responsible Conservative action and principle. To counter Labour's reckless spending, our Conservatives have embarked on an aggressive, Government-driven austerity programme ever since 2010, something you need Big Government powers to institute and maintain. They're still applying it, to an extent. But this thinking can be tracked back to Margaret Thatcher, a firm believer in economic realism, and awarding, and spending, only what you can afford. See ...

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...garet-thatcher


When she took office, Thatcher slashed public spending, taking on the "welfare state," and took a hard line on inflation, seeking to keep runaway prices under control. One result of this was skyrocketing unemployment. When she took office in 1979, Thatcher's Britain had an unemployment rate of just over 5 percent. In 1982, that rate would peak at nearly 12 percent.

It's a lesson that European nations in economic turmoil are learning again today: cutting spending can dramatically slow growth and take people off of payrolls. However, Thatcher remained unapologetic about her policies, even when Britons questioned her, famously telling parliament, "To those waiting with bated breath for that favorite media catchphrase, the U-turn, I have only one thing to say: 'You turn if you want to. The lady's not for turning,'"

State powers to apply overall monetary control ... Margaret Thatcher applied them unapologetically .. because she understood that, sometimes, only Governmental powers could serve to achieve what was needed.

I've posted recently that Margaret Thatcher abolished the Greater London Council. It's widely accepted that she did so because she hated the political direction it had taken. She considered it right to act so autocratically because it was in the public interest to do so ... another example of a Big Government intervention.

Margaret genuinely believed in private enterprise and in 'minimal' Government ... BUT ... knew that there had to be times when only Big Government would serve to right wrongs, when the application of corrective power had to be undertaken. This she always did without any apology at all.

An overview ....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...onomic-record/

[Perianne]

Superb, Sir Drummond!

[Drummond]

Superb, Sir Drummond!

Thank you, Lady Perianne !! :salute:

[Perianne]

Thank you, Lady Perianne !! :salute:

You make me blush.

[fj1200]

You spend an inordinate amount of time on justifying your backing of big government initiatives. Conservatism is small government; big government is not small government; big government is not conservative.

But I digress, Mags was awesome as we all know but not everything she did was conservative in nature just as Reagan was awesome not everything he did was conservative in nature.

[Drummond]

You spend an inordinate amount of time on justifying your backing of big government initiatives. Conservatism is small government; big government is not small government; big government is not conservative.

But I digress, Mags was awesome as we all know but not everything she did was conservative in nature just as Reagan was awesome not everything he did was conservative in nature.

Oh, I see. Now, YOU are more of a Conservative than Margaret Thatcher was ?!? And how do you square your contention with your one-time 'Ultimate Thatcherite' claim ????

I've pointed out that Mrs Thatcher was a realist, that she'd do what it took to get the job done. Conservatism is like that, you see ... FUNDAMENTALLY REALISTIC.

Some of what reveals you as you truly are is shown in your inability to go beyond your grasp of dogma. A Leftie will remain imprisoned within whatever preferred delusionary state its dogma best relates to. Conservatives aren't about the advancement of PREFERRED 'truth' over ACTUAL truth. We deal with the real world.

So it is that Conservatism has its pragmatic side. This is something you'll not grasp, in the way that Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, and TRUE Conservatives, do.

In the UK, in 2010, the Conservatives (unfortunately with Liberal Democrats in tow .. but, well, there's reality for you !) inherited a bankrupted economy, thanks in large part to reckless spending by their Socialist predecessors. Now, your version of Conservatism, 'grounded' in pure dogma, would've seen them avoid austerity controls, and aim instead for lower taxation in the forlorn hope that a galvanised business environment would've somehow generated the profits to revitalise the economy.

BUT, since REALISM would've been left out of that, it would've failed. Britain had its crippling debts. Without austerity measures, spending wouldn't have been reined back, and without stopgap tax raising, all the revenues available from it wouldn't have fed into the economy. So .. a period of years would've elapsed, during which the massive shortfalls in our economy would have persisted.

Enter CONSERVATIVE REALISM on to the scene. Austerity measures, curbing expenditures (so, revenues saved). Tax raising (so, revenue accrued). Neither 'ideal' .. but then, NO IDEAL SCENARIO EXISTED, one where businesses, immune to the effects of a crippled economy, were fit enough to be dynamic money-making entities, filling the fiscal gap 'at a stroke'. YEARS of interim recovery were needed before such money fed into the system and benefited it. Conservatives, therefore, dealt with their inherited reality as reality demanded, for as long as it did.

Since you lack Conservative realism, but instead continue with pure dogma ... your path follows the SOCIALIST one. You argue against austerity measures. In doing that, who do you end up agreeing with ?

British .. SOCIALISTS, who OPPOSE austerity measures.

Greek .. SOCIALISTS, who OPPOSE austerity measures.

Portuguese .. SOCIALISTS, who OPPOSE austerity measures.

Pure coincidence, FJ ? I hardly think so !!

Here's the truth, FJ. Margaret Thatcher was a true Conservative.

And you .. are a true LEFTIE. Preferring dogma over realism, and over constructive approaches to problems. And insisting upon ONLY seeing that dogma, and that brand of thinking. Because .. in truth, you cannot think in any other way .. LEFTIE.

[Perianne]

lol

[Drummond]

lol

Who knows. Maybe FJ will undergo an epiphany, and somehow begin to grasp proper Conservative thinking, expanding his thought processes beyond his purely Leftie, dogma-driven ones.:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Or maybe he'll just go on claiming to be a 'superior' Conservative, superior, it seems, by his OWN reckoning, to even Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan !!!!:laugh:

'Poor FJ'. He'll never give up on his self-justifying, and wholly unbelievable, propaganda. Because propaganda, dogma, therefore LEFTIE THINKING PROCESSES, is all that he really has.

But then, he's just a Leftie, playing at being something else, but being woefully inadequate to the task of truly identifying with and understanding his betters !!

LOL indeed ....

[Perianne]

Who knows. Maybe FJ will undergo an epiphany, and somehow begin to grasp proper Conservative thinking, expanding his thought processes beyond his purely Leftie, dogma-driven ones.:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Or maybe he'll just go on claiming to be a 'superior' Conservative, superior, it seems, by his OWN reckoning, to even Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan !!!!:laugh:

'Poor FJ'. He'll never give up on his self-justifying, and wholly unbelievable, propaganda. Because propaganda, dogma, therefore LEFTIE THINKING PROCESSES, is all that he really has.

But then, he's just a Leftie, playing at being something else, but being woefully inadequate to the task of truly identifying with and understanding his betters !!

LOL indeed ....

I think being a conservative is not something easily learned as an adult. It is an inherent part of our lives and probably must be learned at an early age. But if it can be learned, he has many great examples here from whom he can learn.

[Drummond]

I think being a conservative is not something easily learned as an adult. It is an inherent part of our lives and probably must be learned at an early age. But if it can be learned, he has many great examples here from whom he can learn.

Well, I only learned it myself, in my teens, Peri. Until I was well into my teens, I bought into the utopian rot that Socialists preach.

I was snapped out of it through recognition of reality. Instead of 'progress' from Socialism, instead I saw Socialist-ruled Trade Unions pursue, NOT Socialist ends, but a greedy grasping of money. Money they'd not earned, but instead were trying to blackmail from their employers. I saw them prepared to wreck businesses, even wreck our whole economy, in the pursuit and gratification of sheer greed.

So Socialism was proved to me to not only be dishonest in its application, but highly destructive. I turned to its alternative, and to Conservatives who have to keep clearing up after the disgusting messes that Socialists leave for them. Conservatism is practical, realistic, it DOES serve human aspiration. I had to see it for myself.

I don't know that FJ will ever snap out of his delusional mindset and truly learn the correct path. More probably he'll just continue on, arrogantly trying to con us.

But, as you say .. IF he wants to learn, he can do so from this very source.

I won't hold my breath, though, waiting for that ............ :rolleyes::rolleyes:

[fj1200]

Oh, I see. Now, YOU are more of a Conservative than Margaret Thatcher was ?!? And how do you square your contention with your one-time 'Ultimate Thatcherite' claim ????

You said it, not me. ;) Nevertheless you haven't disputed the fact and truth of my post. Now on to shred your other ridiculous claim as I've done frequently before.


Since you lack Conservative realism, but instead continue with pure dogma ... your path follows the SOCIALIST one. You argue against austerity measures. In doing that, who do you end up agreeing with ?

British .. SOCIALISTS, who OPPOSE austerity measures.

Greek .. SOCIALISTS, who OPPOSE austerity measures.

Portuguese .. SOCIALISTS, who OPPOSE austerity measures.

Pure coincidence, FJ ? I hardly think so !!

Please point out where any of those socialists have agreed with me in advocating for tax cuts and deregulation. Now, after your failure to do that... I oppose austerity because it's a failed solution advocated for primarily by an organization run by the European liberal establishment. Which is of course not surprising in why you advocate so hard for austerity principles. There's nothing conservative about it.

But I digress, you made a thread about Mags and not me... hmm... Mags is awesome.


She expressly forbade intelligence agencies from using such information, because of her strong moral fibre and because she thought such evidence would in any case be unreliable.

[Drummond]

You said it, not me. ;) Nevertheless you haven't disputed the fact and truth of my post. Now on to shred your other ridiculous claim as I've done frequently before.

So, to be clear, you ARE claiming to be more Conservative than Margaret Thatcher was ???

Totally, utterly, delusional !!

And what does this say for your supposed 'loyalty' to her, that you set yourself ABOVE her ???

You see, FJ, by continuing as you are, all you really do is shoot yourself in the foot.


Please point out where any of those socialists have agreed with me in advocating for tax cuts and deregulation.

My understanding is that they prefer tax hikes, instead. But, you see ... THEY have each had to deal with realities (& besides, they enjoy tax hikes !). You, by contrast, are disconnected from reality. It's part of what proves you to NOT be a Conservative ... as does, of course, your rejection of austerity packages !!

Both that disconnection, and disregard of austerity measures as any solution, each help to prove your failure to measure up to true, tried and tested Conservatives.


Now, after your failure to do that... I oppose austerity because it's a failed solution advocated for primarily by an organization run by the European liberal establishment.

Rather an odd name to give to the British Conservative Party ??

And make up your mind. Do Socialists APPROVE of austerity, or DISapprove ?

Suggest you ask the British, Greek, Portuguese Lefties for their input !! Or, are you too busy AGREEING WITH THEM TO BOTHER ?


Which is of course not surprising in why you advocate so hard for austerity principles. There's nothing conservative about it.

Defying realism is Conservative in nature ? Since when ? No .. that's what Lefties do. It's what YOU are doing, and INSIST upon doing.


But I digress, you made a thread about Mags and not me... hmm... Mags is awesome.

And, you refuse to learn from her example .. and you, the - ahem - 'One True Thatcherite' .... ???? :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Oh, and I'd prefer it if you desisted from finding excuses to be lenient towards Muslim terrorists, by the way ... the likes of which Mrs Thatcher never had to consider, much less tackle.

[fj1200]

So, to be clear, you ARE claiming to be more Conservative than Margaret Thatcher was ???

It was a joke you humourless twit... or was it. :eek:


My understanding is that they prefer tax hikes...

Bam! You're probably too stupid to know you've just shot yourself in the foot and have to concoct a reason to justify your ignorant imagination. :)


Rather an odd name to give to the British Conservative Party ??

I was referring to the IMF you uneducated buffoon. :)


Defying realism is Conservative in nature ?

:whew: I've never done that. Now you can go back to your justification of big government viewpoints. :slap:


And, you refuse to learn from her example .. and you, the - ahem - 'One True Thatcherite' .... ????

I'm the only one here acknowledging her example you lying hypocrite. :)

[Noir]

So, to be clear, you ARE claiming to be more Conservative than Margaret Thatcher was ???


Its worth considering that thatcher was hardly the most conservative of conservatives.

[Drummond]

Its worth considering that thatcher was hardly the most conservative of conservatives.

I fail to see the basis for that remark, Noir.

But still, no matter. A little loyalty between comrades is a wonderful thing. I'm sure FJ will appreciate your assistance ....

[Drummond]

It was a joke you humourless twit... or was it. :eek:

I'm sure we both know that it wasn't. You obviously know you've overstepped a boundary, so, you're trying to wriggle out of it.

Well, wriggle away. Squirm if you think it'll help ..


Bam! You're probably too stupid to know you've just shot yourself in the foot and have to concoct a reason to justify your ignorant imagination. :)

Only a Leftie would consider honesty a bad policy.

Here's the difference. Tax hikes are PREFERRED by the Left. After all, since the Left don't buy into the spirit of thinking that approves of capitalistic enterprise (not in dogma terms, anyway) .. so, realistically, they have to thieve money from people instead. [And they just LOVE concentrating on the wealthy as targets.]

The Right do not PREFER taxation as a way of solving issues ... BUT ... if it's called for, their sense of realism wins out. In the example of the British economy I gave you, realism did indeed win out.

It's a brand of realism that escapes you. This is because you are NOT a Conservative.


I was referring to the IMF you uneducated buffoon. :)

So what, if you were ? Fact is that austerity measures were undertaken by the Conservative Party. They were required, so, they were implemented.


:whew: I've never done that. Now you can go back to your justification of big government viewpoints. :slap:

You mean, I can go back to my Thatcherism ?

Why, thank you kindly !


I'm the only one here acknowledging her example you lying hypocrite. :)

But, 'her example' is one you fundamentally REJECT .......

[fj1200]

I'm sure we both know that it wasn't. You obviously know you've overstepped a boundary, so, you're trying to wriggle out of it.

Well, wriggle away. Squirm if you think it'll help ..

Were you born this humorless or did you have to work at it?


Only a Leftie would consider honesty a bad policy.

Here's the difference. Tax hikes are PREFERRED by the Left. After all, since the Left don't buy into the spirit of thinking that approves of capitalistic enterprise (not in dogma terms, anyway) .. so, realistically, they have to thieve money from people instead. [And they just LOVE concentrating on the wealthy as targets.]

The Right do not PREFER taxation as a way of solving issues ... BUT ... if it's called for, their sense of realism wins out. In the example of the British economy I gave you, realism did indeed win out.

It's a brand of realism that escapes you. This is because you are NOT a Conservative.

:laugh: You're a big government hack. You're trying to concoct some ridiculous logic to try and squirm away from being an utter failure in pointing out where the Socialists I supposedly agree with have proposed tax cuts and deregulation. Boy, you are stupid.


So what, if you were ? Fact is that austerity measures were undertaken by the Conservative Party. They were required, so, they were implemented.

No they weren't. Austerity sucks and that proved out in Britain which is why Osborne said, "hey, let's cut us some tax rates like actual supply-side conservatives would do." (that was a paraphrase of course)


You mean, I can go back to my Thatcherism ?

Why, thank you kindly !

Of course you can go back to your brand, I've never suggested otherwise.


But, 'her example' is one you fundamentally REJECT .......

I'm the only one here who supports it. Her example is not being a lying hypocrite as you are. :)

[fj1200]

Mags is awesome:


Even The New York Times obituary (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/09/world/europe/former-prime-minister-margaret-thatcher-of-britain-has-died.html), beneath a home-page headline characterizing the heroine of the Cold War as “divisive,” seemed to grasp what it describes as “the principles known as Thatcherism — the belief that economic freedom and individual liberty are interdependent, that personal responsibility and hard work are the only ways to national prosperity, and that the free-market democracies must stand firm against aggression.”
https://reason.com/archives/2013/04/08/how-margaret-thatcher-brought-economic-f

[Drummond]

Were you born this humorless or did you have to work at it?'

A pity you can't view yourself as I view you, isn't it ? Trust me, it has its funny side !


:laugh: You're a big government hack. You're trying to concoct some ridiculous logic to try and squirm away from being an utter failure in pointing out where the Socialists I supposedly agree with have proposed tax cuts and deregulation. Boy, you are stupid.

You, as 'The One True Thatcherite'. should have no difficulty in agreeing with Margaret's several examples of her exercising Big Government power ! YET, YOU DO. Proof you're a fraud in itself.

You strongly agree with Socialists in a number of countries, my own included, who are committed to opposing austerity measures. You've said before, you even repeat it here, that they 'suck'. YET .... to throw away such measures for economies trying to recover, would necessitate harsh alternatives. Such as .... tax RISES (and very major ones at that). Such as, all possible REGULATION to keep some semblance of control.

If you're anti-austerity, your only realistic options would be to agree to other Socialist measures, too. Tax cuts, deregulation, CANNOT WORK when allied to doing away with austerity controls !!


No they weren't. Austerity sucks and that proved out in Britain which is why Osborne said, "hey, let's cut us some tax rates like actual supply-side conservatives would do." (that was a paraphrase of course)

Conservatives don't like applying austerity measures, but they DO, if they see a need for it. So, when they begin to gain fiscal ground through the successful application of them, they try and ease off where they can.

That said ....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35248628

... he may have to reconsider doing so.


Of course you can go back to your brand, I've never suggested otherwise.

You mean, it's not YOURS, too ?

You're finally abandoning your 'Thatcherite' claims for yourself ? Honesty's finally winning out, eh, FJ ??

[Kathianne]

I can't say I was watching British politics all that much when Thatcher was PM, I do remember some of the things Drummond has brought up and some that FJ and I have noted are not conservative, at least by US standards. Drummond has given numerous examples of where she was 'big government' and health care was one of them. She was conservative by British standards though:

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-04-10/margaret-thatcher-wasn-t-really-a-conservative


...Back to Thatcher. Thatcher got to be Thatcher because of the enormity of her task. Malaise doesn't capture what nationalization had wrought: Basic services were unobtainable. There wasn't consensus on what had to be done to get the trains running and phones installed. Many looking at long unemployment queues and the end of free milk in the schools wanted to trip her with their brollies. But there was consensus that something had to be done.

Then came Thatcher with a plan. Former President Bill Clinton once observed that politics rewards those who are certain and wrong over those who are hesitant and right. The corollary of that is that someone with a plan is better than someone without. We don't remember her occasional compromising, Ramesh -- on the miners and the IRA -- because she didn't trumpet it as such. Her power derived from her style. She needed to be seen as ramrod straight, captured by one of her most famous quotes (http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/104431): "You turn if you want to. The lady's not for turning."


The most interesting review of Thatcher's reign -- other than yours, Ramesh! -- came, surprisingly, from Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC. By prevailing American standards, O'Donnell noted (http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/04/09/odonnell-margaret-thatcher-the-socialist-was-forgotten-long-before-she-was-gone/), Thatcher was a raging leftie, with a tax rate of 60 percent for most of her term, her belief in universal health care, and her embrace of evolution and global warming. What's more, she told her citizens that to avert climate change, those in developed countries were just going to have to pay more than those in undeveloped countries.


How poignant that Thatcher was drummed out not by working stiffs, but by her own Tories, who couldn't abide her resistance to the Eurozone. It helps when your controversial, straight-ahead style is backed up by history. To paraphrase Clinton, the best way for a politician to be is certain and right.



http://onlineathens.com/opinion/2013-04-08/harrop-thatcher-wasnt-hard-right-conservative


...Thatcher would have laughed at when Obamacare foes’ called the reforms “a government takeover of health care.” Recall how, in the heat of battle, the right waved Britain’s National Health Service as a warning of terrible things awaiting American health care under the Affordable Care Act.

But here is what Thatcher wrote about the NHS in her memoir, “The Downing Street Years,” after she had left the thick of politics: “I believed that the NHS was a service of which we could genuinely be proud. It delivered a high quality of care — especially when in it came to acute illnesses — and at a reasonably modest unit cost, at least compared with some insurance-based systems.”


In Britain, doctors work for the government, making the NHS truly socialistic. As for government control of health care, Obamacare doesn’t come close. But had candidate Obama likewise praised NHS to the skies, his consultants would have passed around smelling salts...

[Drummond]

Mags is awesome:


https://reason.com/archives/2013/04/08/how-margaret-thatcher-brought-economic-f

Those were her preferences, sure. But she was a pragmatist, and when she first took power in 1979, she inherited a weak economy.

So ...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/03/george-osborne-austerity-has-failed-tories


Consider Thatcher’s first term. That government braced itself and rode out social conflict and soaring unemployment of a scale that would have brought this shaky coalition to its knees. It was pitiless, relentless, seemingly impervious to protest or plea. It was the most unpopular government in postwar history. Yet in 1983 it was propelled back into office with roughly the same percentage of the vote it had obtained in 1979.

This is because in 1982 the world economy – after a decade of turbulence and stagnation – began to turn the corner. A new vector of growth had opened up in south-east Asia, and global capital rushed to invest. The recovery was sufficient for the Treasury to begin relaxing the purse strings, thus allowing just enough people to feel wealthy enough in advance of the 1983 election.

The global recovery wasn’t enough by itself, however. Thatcher had always been clear that her austerity agenda was not a belt-tightening exercise, but a deliberate attempt to transform and “modernise” British society. It was, in the idiom of the IMF, a “structural adjustment programme”.

Conservatives apply practical solutions to problems. Mrs Thatcher's Government did, and regardless of what you'd like to believe, her first term in Office was a mixture of tough Big Government crackdowns on Unions, and fiscal control measures. Measures which she regarded as the path to a more modern and fiscally healthy economy.

FJ, weak economies are not strong ones. Weak economies are not robust .. they require controlled dosages of remedial medicine. Applying a spending recklessness to economies so weakened, as would happen if you DON'T apply controls, does them no good at all.

... Yes, really ...

It's a pity that pragmatism over dogma doesn't work in your mind, FJ. If it did, you'd be a lot nearer to being what you CLAIM to be.

[Drummond]

I can't say I was watching British politics all that much when Thatcher was PM, I do remember some of the things Drummond has brought up and some that FJ and I have noted are not conservative, at least by US standards. Drummond has given numerous examples of where she was 'big government' and health care was one of them. She was conservative by British standards though:

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-04-10/margaret-thatcher-wasn-t-really-a-conservative


http://onlineathens.com/opinion/2013-04-08/harrop-thatcher-wasnt-hard-right-conservative

Yes, she was Conservative by British standards, and regarded by our people, whether you personally agree or not, as particularly Right wing.

But if you want to press any case suggesting a lack of Conservative 'bona fides' to her, I'm afraid that, since FJ himself keeps trying to identify himself with her, what you're saying is that FJ cannot be Conservative, and most certainly not by American standards.

FJ .. self-billed, until comparatively recently, as 'The One True Thatcherite', and before that, 'The Ultimate Thatcherite'.

It speaks for itself.

QED.

[fj1200]

Those were her preferences, sure. But she was a pragmatist, and when she first took power in 1979, she inherited a weak economy.

So ...
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/03/george-osborne-austerity-has-failed-tories

Conservatives apply practical solutions to problems. Mrs Thatcher's Government did, and regardless of what you'd like to believe, her first term in Office was a mixture of tough Big Government crackdowns on Unions, and fiscal control measures. Measures which she regarded as the path to a more modern and fiscally healthy economy.

FJ, weak economies are not strong ones. Weak economies are not robust .. they require controlled dosages of remedial medicine. Applying a spending recklessness to economies so weakened, as would happen if you DON'T apply controls, does them no good at all.

... Yes, really ...

It's a pity that pragmatism over dogma doesn't work in your mind, FJ. If it did, you'd be a lot nearer to being what you CLAIM to be.

But you keep running away from reality. Conservatism is small government not big government. She may have been a pragmatist that chose big government solutions but that would by definition make them not conservative. That's all there is to it. You can bluster and sputter all you want but that is the ultimate rub.

Moving on, there are two things wrong with what you're claiming from your link. First, it claims that Osborne's austerity has failed which destroys one of you arguments you keep prattling on about. Second, Mags didn't institute austerity as I defined it so long ago. Austerity in my book is raising taxes and cutting spending. That's not what she did; from your link:


Mass unemployment was an instrument for the disciplining and weakening of labour, followed up by union-busting as state policy. Cuts in welfare had a similar effect. Cuts in taxes for businesses and the rich encouraged private sector investment and luxury consumption. With lower costs of investment and higher returns, British business was in rude health. Profit margins for UK companies had slumped since 1973, but rose more or less consistently between 1982 and 1997.

It's nice when supply-side, conservative economics wins the day. Not that I would want to be in the position of supporting an increase in the VAT tax though. Weak economies become strong ones when tax cuts and deregulation empower individuals, not when government goes big.

[fj1200]

A pity you can't view yourself as I view you

Why would I want to be in your head? It's an ignorant environment to be sure.


You strongly agree with Socialists in a number of countries, my own included, who are committed to opposing austerity measures. You've said before, you even repeat it here, that they 'suck'. YET .... to throw away such measures for economies trying to recover, would necessitate harsh alternatives. Such as .... tax RISES (and very major ones at that). Such as, all possible REGULATION to keep some semblance of control.

This is why you're a lying hypocrite, I don't agree with socialists on anything. If they want to agree that austerity sucks then they can hop on board; it doesn't make them right on anything else though. You however make claims, fail to back them up, then continue to whine about the same thing like a moron. You're just to stupid for words. Nevertheless another try for you; Point out again where those socialists want to cut taxes and engage in deregulation then you might have something. But you can't do it and you've never been able to do it. You are an incredibly feckless fool.


Conservatives don't like applying austerity measures, but they DO...

No, conservatives cut taxes, they don't raise them. Idiots who think they are conservative support austerity even in the face of its failure. And you're an idiot. QED :eek:


You mean, it's not YOURS, too ?

You're finally abandoning your 'Thatcherite' claims for yourself ? Honesty's finally winning out, eh, FJ ??

You're brand of Thatcherism is ignorant and foolhardy.

[Drummond]

But you keep running away from reality. Conservatism is small government not big government. She may have been a pragmatist that chose big government solutions but that would by definition make them not conservative. That's all there is to it. You can bluster and sputter all you want but that is the ultimate rub.

Considering that, for quite some time, you happily called yourself 'The Ultimate Thatcherite', you must've been claiming to be the ultimate supporter of all that she said and did. So, if you now assert that what she did was 'not Conservative' .. surely it's obvious that you, therefore, are THE ULTIMATE NON-CONSERVATIVE ??:laugh::laugh::rolleyes:

Well, blow me down with a feather ! 'What a surprise', eh ?? :laugh::laugh:


Moving on ...

... rather quickly, to be sure ... :laugh: ....


..there are two things wrong with what you're claiming from your link. First, it claims that Osborne's austerity has failed which destroys one of you arguments you keep prattling on about.

Another example of your shooting yourself in the foot ? FJ .. how to break this to you .. the Guardian, being a Leftie rag, CANNOT ALWAYS BE BELIEVED.

OK, this'll come as a shock to you, I'm sure. But .. there it is. Cope with that as best you can !


Second, Mags didn't institute austerity as I defined it so long ago. Austerity in my book is raising taxes and cutting spending. That's not what she did; from your link:

Since you're in the business of believing all that Leftie rags tell you, here's something from one that you really ought to take on board ..

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/08/margaret-thatcher-conservative-taxes-budget_n_3037728.html


Margaret Thatcher may be best known in the U.S. for her intellectual and personal ties to Ronald Reagan. But despite her ideological closeness with the Republican hero, many in the current GOP establishment have distanced themselves from one of her policies: raising taxes.

... whoops !! :laugh:


In her first budget proposal, Thatcher slashed income taxes. But in order to pay for the revenue loss, she raised the Value Added Tax -- the UK’s equivalent to the sales tax, according to a 1990 report from a resident scholar at The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. As Bruce Bartlett, a former policy adviser to Reagan and George H. W. Bush, notes, taxes as a share of the economy actually increased under Thatcher.

... double whoops .. !!

As for the public spending issue .....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8417839.stm


Margaret Thatcher faced considerable opposition from her own ministers to her plans to slash public sector spending, documents from 1979 reveal.

Records from the National Archives lay bare the new prime minister's devotion to her "operation" - and show that no department was safe.

Those most upset at cutting jobs, money and services were chancellor Geoffrey Howe and defence secretary Francis Pym.

The PM also rejected an idea to send a Christmas message to civil servants.

The National Archive records show that shortly after taking power in 1979, Mrs Thatcher asked all government departments to come up with ideas to cut at least 10% - and up to 20% - from their budgets.

In reply, Mr Pym wrote to her several times, pleading with her to exempt the Ministry of Defence ....

TRIPLE whoops, FJ .. ?

FJ, you have an amazing talent for shooting yourself in the foot .. or is it that you feel you need the practice, hence all the attempts at it ??


It's nice when supply-side, conservative economics wins the day. Not that I would want to be in the position of supporting an increase in the VAT tax though. Weak economies become strong ones when tax cuts and deregulation empower individuals, not when government goes big.

Ahem ... NO. You, as the self-styled 'Ultimate Thatcherite', are the 'ULTIMATE' supporter of her .. yes ? And, Mrs Thatcher DID INCREASE VAT !!

--- so, FJ, choose. Choose between continuing to be a 'low taxation' advocate, or, the 'ULTIMATE' Thatcher supporter, supporting her RAISING tax ..

ONE OR THE OTHER.

Finally face facts. True Conservatives are pragmatists, and will do what it takes to properly tackle problems. And ... they are not like YOU, wedded to dogma to the extent that you cannot see anything, ever, beyond it.

Dinosaurs aren't known for their adaptive capabilities. But, Conservatives ARE. We face real situations as reality demands. Mrs Thatcher did. Our current Conservatives do.

AND YOU - DO NOT.

[fj1200]

Parsing out your crap.


Another example of your shooting yourself in the foot ? FJ .. how to break this to you .. the Guardian, being a Leftie rag, CANNOT ALWAYS BE BELIEVED.

So you're simultaneously quoting the Guardian as proof of something and running away from something else the Guardian says?

:facepalm99:


... whoops !! :laugh:

... double whoops .. !!

TRIPLE whoops, FJ .. ?

1st "whoops." She cut taxes and she also raised taxes. She should not have raised the VAT.
2nd "whoops." Tax rates are a different animal than taxes as a percent of GDP
3rd "whoops." Point out where I stated she didn't cut spending or propose to cut spending.

Try again. Your ignorance is showing. I believe Reagan's conservative approach was superior to Mag's approach as measured by the unemployment rate. It appears UK unemployment remained higher longer than it did in the US.


--- so, FJ, choose. Choose between continuing to be a 'low taxation' advocate, or, the 'ULTIMATE' Thatcher supporter, supporting her RAISING tax ..

I've always advocated for low taxation. I'm also not a Thatcherite parrot that can only stomp my feet if anyone dares have a different opinion. But I digress, now you're arguing that raising taxes is conservative?

You can't stay on track and I'm still slapping you around in your own thread. :sweet:

[Drummond]

Parsing out your crap.

Translation: 'Avoiding everything that's too awkward' ..


So you're simultaneously quoting the Guardian as proof of something and running away from something else the Guardian says?

Does it worry you that I'm, obviously, not nearly as inclined as you are to believe as 'gospel truth' everything they print ?

The Guardian is, of course, pro-Leftie, which is why you had no difficulty in accepting what they printed, did you. For us Conservatives, the trick is to separate out what's printed for propagandist effect, and what it's possible to take as actual truth.


1st "whoops." She cut taxes and she also raised taxes. She should not have raised the VAT.

Sorry, that just will not do !! ARE you an 'Ultimate Thatcherite', or not ? If you are what you've claimed to be, then no disagreement with her decision-making, especially over something so important, should be happening. Ah, but then, since YOU ARE A FRAUD, of course, it IS.

But as for your objection, you're just wrong, and for a reason I explained to you long ago. TAX CUTS HAVE TO BE AFFORDED. Mrs Thatcher cut back on basic rate income tax. Doing that, meant a loss in revenue that the economy needed. It had to be recovered elsewhere. Raising VAT was the answer, as a counterbalance.

Reckless spending, frittering away needed revenue .. this is what LEFTIES do. But in true Conservative style, Mrs Thatcher chose fiscal prudence, and chose to balance a loss with a counterbalancing gain. It's a pity that you're too much of a Leftie to think as responsibly as that. Holes in the economy need to be plugged.

Why that particular tactic was such a good one, was that it introduced an element of freedom. VAT is applied to goods classifiable as 'luxury items', making payment of it subject to an element of consumer choice. Raise tax mandatorially for those in a particular wage-earning bracket, and that's a compulsory measure that people are just 'stuck with'.

From my previous link, I'll requote this:


In her first budget proposal, Thatcher slashed income taxes. But in order to pay for the revenue loss, she raised the Value Added Tax
Precisely. You balance fiscal harm with counterbalancing fiscal good.


2nd "whoops." Tax rates are a different animal than taxes as a percent of GDP

So what ? Both involve revenue accruement. FJ, you really need to get past your Leftie irresponsibility in this area !

Simple fact: Conservatives don't willingly and blindly replace realism with dogma, as Lefties do. Sure, Conservatives PREFER not to raise taxes, but, if reality demands it, then they will.


3rd "whoops." Point out where I stated she didn't cut spending or propose to cut spending.

OK, then. Try this out ....

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?53354-Thatcher-s-Approach-to-Government-Power&p=790766#post790766


Second, Mags didn't institute austerity as I defined it so long ago. Austerity in my book is raising taxes and cutting spending.

You say that she didn't institute austerity ... yet, she DID raise tax higher than before (the overall balance of it being greater than before), and, she DID cut spending (.. which her Ministers protested about).

She actually did do the things that constitute the definition of an austerity programme, despite your claim that she did NOT. That involved cutting back on spending, which she did.


Try again. Your ignorance is showing. I believe Reagan's conservative approach was superior to Mag's approach as measured by the unemployment rate. It appears UK unemployment remained higher longer than it did in the US.

Oh, I see .. so, both Reagan and Mrs Thatcher were dealing with identical economies ? Identical strengths ? Identical conditions ? Identical industrial relations histories ?? Did Ronald Reagan have his Union-led 'Winter of Discontent' to contend with, for example, and to recover from ? Identical balance of payment conditions ? Identical capacities to fix problems ???

It's flattering that you think the UK economy to be as strong and robust as the American one is. Truth is, though, that conditions vary .. and that has to be taken into account.

But tell me again about MY 'ignorance' ...


I've always advocated for low taxation.

As a matter of dogmatic 'faith', if not also out of any sense of reality !! Which begs the question - are you really so blind to reality, or, are you just bogusly posturing as you think a Conservative SHOULD think, but minus the sheer commonsense that goes with it ?


I'm also not a Thatcherite parrot that can only stomp my feet if anyone dares have a different opinion.

You freely admit your fraudulence, then ? How can any 'Ultimate Thatcherite' not be 'ultimately' loyal to all of her stances ??

You do seem to be suggesting that I am more completely loyal to her than you. But ... in your stated terms, anyway ... HOW ?


But I digress, now you're arguing that raising taxes is conservative?

PREFERRING not to, is Conservative. But meeting situations with realism and responsibility, and not dogmatic blindness and sheer irresponsible recklessness, this is what pivotally separates Conservatism out from its useless Socialist 'counterpart'.

Mrs Thatcher was a true Conservative, as her realism continually demonstrated. She believed - if you insist upon the value of dogma, as of course you Leftily will - in fiscal prudence as an article of faith. Therefore, she was never going to be irresponsible in that area ....

... 'sorry' ...


You can't stay on track and I'm still slapping you around in your own thread. :sweet:

Dream on. In fact, it'll be interesting to see just how much of what I've posted you will feel a need to avoid answering .. AGAIN ....

[fj1200]

Translation: 'Avoiding everything that's too awkward' ..

Correct translation was you're a freaking idiot.

Big government is not conservative. No matter how much you parse out my post. If you want to discuss like adults then you'll change the way that you post.

[Drummond]

Correct translation was you're a freaking idiot.

Big government is not conservative. No matter how much you parse out my post. If you want to discuss like adults then you'll change the way that you post.

Yet MORE proof that you're not a Conservative ! You claim to be pro-Thatcherite, but you insist on defying her on how she did her job !!!

Big Government conduct is what it is .. a tool, to be used when rendered necessary. True Conservatism is pragmatic. Therefore, they will be as Big Government as circumstances require.

You, FJ, persist with blindly following dogma, to the exclusion of all else. That is LEFTIE thinking. It's the opposite of Conservatism, as I've known it to be, throughout my life. Conservatives prefer not to exercise Big Government methods, but, WILL DO SO when it serves them.

Our Trade Union problem, for example, back in the '70's. Jim Callaghan (Labour) tried for a mutually cooperative pact with them, NOT using force of Government to keep them in line. It worked for a couple of years. Then, they reneged on it, started strikes, the resulting chaos forced a vote of no confidence in Callaghan's Government, Callaghan lost the vote, and in May '79 Mrs Thatcher took over from him.

She, too, could've tried the 'let's be reasonable and find a compromise' route. But instead, she just used the rule of law against them. She didn't accommodate .. SHE GOVERNED. Laws were passed to restrict Union freedoms. And the problem, ultimately, was solved.

You recently said 'Mags was awesome'. I agree. Her no-nonsense approach, her never yielding to anybody, this is what made her 'awesome'. She would've preferred to treat Union leaders like responsible adults, but she knew that nothing less than Governmental power wielded against them would do. And wield it, she did. Without hesitation or apology ... EVER.

Big Government isn't preferred. But it does have its place. Sometimes, nothing else will do. Margaret Thatcher knew that well.

And your 'reverence' for her, and the way she governed, actually amounts to - as you're now proving - nothing else but sniping at the way she did her job.

Why ?

BECAUSE YOU'RE A FRAUD.

[fj1200]

Big Government conduct is what it is ..

... and it's not conservative. So you've chosen to not discuss as an adult. :(