Margaret Thatcher dies of a stroke.

[NurembergVillan]

Yesterday's shenanigans in the Houses has cost us the taxpayer an additional £2m quid !!! Un ber **** lievable

Imagine how many snow leopards could have been saved with that money

 

It was probably Snow Leopard canapés on the menu afterwards.

[CI]

We are still suffering From thatchers regime that's the bloody point FFS

[snowychap]

...to win 3 elections shows that they had the majority of the British public with them.

No it doesn't.

I find it rather worrying that your post was 'liked' by the only person I know on here who is an elected politician (there may be others).

[Ingram85]

Is Richard Mr Burden?

[peterms]

Coming back for my second, and probably last (this time!) post, just to link to a G+ post that came my way

Though I disagree strongly with Prof. Quiggin on the merits of social democracy and Thatcherism, I think he makes a compelling parallel here. The Western world today, like Seventies Britain, is economically repressed in large part through the influence of a corrupted and corrupting special interest, deeply embedded in both political institutions and received opinion, which has freed itself almost completely from market discipline and which maintains its hold by credibly threatening to bring ordinary economic activity to a screeching halt if not appeased. The problem of breaking the power of too-big-to-fail financial conglomerates feels like the problem of breaking the power of British unions.

Now Thatcher, as I understand it, solved that latter problem largely by building up alternative provision mechanisms to make union threats no longer credible-- by stockpiling coal, for example, so that coal miners' strikes would not cause energy shortages. Could an analogous strategy work for finance? There's a broad menu of plausible approaches: +Arnold Kling's bank breakup rules and "easy to fix, not hard to break" resolution mechanisms; Garett Jones's related idea of speed bankruptcy; heterodox central banking proposals like Miles Kimball's Federal Lines of Credit or Steve Waldman's countercyclical helicopter drops. There's a decent chance that some combination of these would get us to a world where we could lose any several financial firms overnight and not suffer a credit freeze, an inability of depositors to withdraw money, etc.

I think there are a couple of differences which make the present task harder, though. First, Thatcher could count on the passionate support of the traditional Conservative base for a straightforward, effective program of sticking it to the unions. There is certainly a stick-it-to-the-banks sentiment on the Left, as we saw in the days of Occupy, but it has no particularly coherent or sensible program for doing the sticking, and is unlikely to be rallied around the subtle heterodox-market-liberal approach that might actually work. "Easy to fix, not hard to break" is never going to make a popular placard.

Second, the unions were a well-defined group whose members and opponents were both conscious of the extent of its membership. I don't think that's true of the beneficiaries of financial-sector influence, who extend well beyond the actual workers in that sector. The easy sloganeering approach is to identify those beneficiaries with "the 1%" but that's really not a good approximation: the 1% is disproportionately represented, to be sure, but a big swath of upper-middle-class-but-not-1% gerontocracy is in there and a big swath of the 1% is not. There is a lot of confusion about who would actually be better or worse off with less political power for finance, and that confusion makes it much harder to set up the sort of coalitional confrontation that Thatcher did.

Will this be the only post in the thread +1'd by Awol and peterms?

The world needs another Thatcher, and it looks unlikely... that said, would anyone in the early 70s have bet money on her?

 

Not me, thanks. 

 

To be fair, Quiggin does admit in a footnote to the piece which this author is commenting on, that he was too far away to understand the miners' strike, and that the outcome was disastrous.

 

When this author describes 70's Britain as "economically repressed in large part through the influence of a corrupted and corrupting special interest, deeply embedded in both political institutions and received opinion, which has freed itself almost completely from market discipline and which maintains its hold by credibly threatening to bring ordinary economic activity to a screeching halt if not appeased", he seems to be relying on the hysterical screeching of the Daily Fail of that time about the unions "holding the country to ransom" rather than engaging in sensible analysis.

 

British industry at that time was in a bad way.  There was little appreciation of the emerging competitive threat of places like Japan, Korea and others.  Decades of underinvestment meant that many factories were equipped with plant which Lloyd George might have recognised.  Management was often complacent and unimaginative.  Unions were often as conservative as management, keen to keep things as they were while trying to increase wages a little.  Many of the unions were controlled by right wingers whose attitudes were unsympathetic to change, whether that was modernisation or representing black people in the workplace.  There was (obviously) a lot of union determination to keep people in jobs, even when those jobs were as hard, dirty and dangerous as mining.  There was quite naturally resistance to cutting jobs without other work to go to.  When this took the form of resistance through strike action, there was always an outbreak of hysteria in the right-wing press: wildcat strikers, militants, Red Robbo, red fascists (c. Keith Joseph) were the shorthand terms used to shape public opinion; "the enemy within" sits squarely in this tradition of namecalling to foster disapproval.

 

But the position of the trades unions was in no sense one of controlling the economy.

 

The finance sector today is in quite a different position.  It is deeply embedded in the controlling structures of the economy.  Insolvent banks who lie about their assets are baled out for billions.  The accountants who audited them and pronounced all was well are invited to write our tax codes, creating byzantine complexity and thousands of loopholes from which they profit.  People move effortlessly from these firms and others like Goldman Sachs to top jobs at the Bank of England and the financial regulator; regulatory capture, indeed.  Politicians are beholden to big finance both through direct bribery (last year, the finance sector became the biggest funder of the Conservative Party) and the prospect of later well-paid sinecures (T. Blair), and are wholly accommodating to the wishes of finance as a result.  The assets of the country are parcelled up and handed out to financiers, whether as privatisation, or the £144bn of PFI contracts, or through inept and inadequate action against taxdodging, or through privatising the power of money creation.  And so on.

 

The comparison this author makes just doesn't work, for me.

[PauloBarnesi]

But it has confirmed that Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner will not be invited.

[PauloBarnesi]

We are still suffering From thatchers regime that's the bloody point FFS

 

and from loads of other politicians, union leaders, business men’s mistakes, some done with a huge amount of malice.

[snowychap]

To those who feel it is ok to celebrate her death

 

So it will be acceptable for people to celebrate when Tony Blair dies? I think he was a evil son of a bitch too but I wouldn't be celebrating when he dies just out of common decency

In the same way as with this one, I won't be partying down the street or feeling glad that someone has died but I won't show an ounce of 'respect' for someone in death that I didn't have for them in life.

Should people want to try and portray him as some sort of great figure about whom we should only eulogize then I'll stand out from that crowd and criticize him, his policies and his philosophy in the same way a day after his death as I would a day before.

[peterms]

To those who feel it is ok to celebrate her death

 

So it will be acceptable for people to celebrate when Tony Blair dies? I think he was a evil son of a bitch too but I wouldn't be celebrating when he dies just out of common decency

In the same way as with this one, I won't be partying down the street or feeling glad that someone has died but I won't show an ounce of 'respect' for someone in death that I didn't have for them in life.

Should people want to try and portray him as some sort of great figure about whom we should only eulogize then I'll stand out from that crowd and criticize him, his policies and his philosophy in the same way a day after his death as I would a day before.

 

One of the loudest calls for "respect" has come from the Daily Mail.

 

It's interesting to see how they have previously shown respect on the death of party leaders.

 

Here.

 

Do as I say, not as I do.  Who'd a thought it?

[MrDuck]

 

When he dies he should have the same funeral as Thatcher, some people do not like him but they should respect him.  People in power have to make hard choices, and to win 3 elections shows that they had the majority of the British public with them. 

 

Respect is earned. It is not a given.

Well a lot on the left have said they respect Thatcher.

 

Good for them. I fail to see how that means I, or anyone else, should also be compelled to respect her.

[markavfc40]

Is Richard Mr Burden?

 

 

You possibly haven't read too many of Richards posts if you think he is a Labour MP

 

You've promoted him but to the wrong side.

Edited April 11, 2013 by markavfc40

[Xann]

No what we have seen is not the celebration of death of ideals,  but the undignified and crass celebration of the death of a person and that does no one,  not one person,  any good.

 

If we make enough noise to get noticed now, we might not have to murder anyone later.

[Jon]

...to win 3 elections shows that they had the majority of the British public with them.

No it doesn't.

I find it rather worrying that your post was 'liked' by the only person I know on here who is an elected politician (there may be others).

I thought my laughing smiley would have been enough to denigrate that pathetically ill informed post.   For the Trickster to like it says much about his motives for posting in here, IMO.

 

For the record:

 

 

1979         Tory Labour Lib/LibDem/SDP

Popular vote

13,697,923 11,532,218 4,313,804 Percentage 43.90% 36.90% 13.80%

 

 

Turnout

76%

 

 

            1983      

Popular vote

13,012,316 8,456,934 7,780,949 Percentage 42.40% 27.60% 25.40%

 

 

Turnout

72.70%

 

 

            1987      

Popular vote

13,760,935 10,029,270 7,341,651 Percentage 42.20% 30.80% 22.60%

 

 

Turnout

75.30%

 

 

   

 

Her highest share of the popular vote was 43.9%. So, well less than the majority of those that went to the polls to vote.

 

And of the 25% of the electorate who didn't either bother/want to go to the polls, I would love someone to put a cogent argument together to say these silent, apathetic or 'non-voters' were somehow 'in favour' of her.

 

To peddle a line about her 3 wins as being indicative that 'most' people (or even voters) were in favour of her, is fantastically ill informed at best, and very disingenuous if done with this knowledge.

[peterms]

Is Richard Mr Burden?

 

 

You possibly haven't read too many of Richards posts if you think he is a Labour MP

 

You've promoted him but to the wrong side.

 

Yes, if he's Richard Burden, I'm Liz Taylor.

[Ingram85]

Haha, was gonna say, didn't make sense but how many villa supporting elected politicians (besides the word removed in charge) can there be?

[PauloBarnesi]

 

...to win 3 elections shows that they had the majority of the British public with them.

No it doesn't.

I find it rather worrying that your post was 'liked' by the only person I know on here who is an elected politician (there may be others).

I thought my laughing smiley would have been enough to denigrate that pathetically ill informed post.   For the Trickster to like it says much about his motives for posting in here, IMO.

 

For the record:

 

 

1979         Tory Labour Lib/LibDem/SDP

Popular vote

13,697,923 11,532,218 4,313,804 Percentage 43.90% 36.90% 13.80%

 

 

Turnout

76%

 

 

            1983      

Popular vote

13,012,316 8,456,934 7,780,949 Percentage 42.40% 27.60% 25.40%

 

 

Turnout

72.70%

 

 

            1987      

Popular vote

13,760,935 10,029,270 7,341,651 Percentage 42.20% 30.80% 22.60%

 

 

Turnout

75.30%

 

 

   

 

Her highest share of the popular vote was 43.9%. So, well less than the majority of those that went to the polls to vote.

 

And of the 25% of the electorate who didn't either bother/want to go to the polls, I would love someone to put a cogent argument together to say these silent, apathetic or 'non-voters' were somehow 'in favour' of her.

 

To peddle a line about her 3 wins as being indicative that 'most' people (or even voters) were in favour of her, is fantastically ill informed at best, and very disingenuous if done with this knowledge.

 

Unfortunately its the system we live under; imperfect, but no one has quite come out with something better.

 

I guess with Thatcher, those who liked her, liked her alot. Those who didn’t really didn’t. No other politician before in our time achieved this level of divide. But the 80s was a very divided time; SAW vs the Smiths, etc, etc.

[Jon]

 

 

...to win 3 elections shows that they had the majority of the British public with them.

No it doesn't.

I find it rather worrying that your post was 'liked' by the only person I know on here who is an elected politician (there may be others).

I thought my laughing smiley would have been enough to denigrate that pathetically ill informed post.   For the Trickster to like it says much about his motives for posting in here, IMO.

 

For the record:

 

 

1979         Tory Labour Lib/LibDem/SDP

Popular vote

13,697,923 11,532,218 4,313,804 Percentage 43.90% 36.90% 13.80%

 

 

Turnout

76%

 

 

            1983      

Popular vote

13,012,316 8,456,934 7,780,949 Percentage 42.40% 27.60% 25.40%

 

 

Turnout

72.70%

 

 

            1987      

Popular vote

13,760,935 10,029,270 7,341,651 Percentage 42.20% 30.80% 22.60%

 

 

Turnout

75.30%

 

 

   

 

Her highest share of the popular vote was 43.9%. So, well less than the majority of those that went to the polls to vote.

 

And of the 25% of the electorate who didn't either bother/want to go to the polls, I would love someone to put a cogent argument together to say these silent, apathetic or 'non-voters' were somehow 'in favour' of her.

 

To peddle a line about her 3 wins as being indicative that 'most' people (or even voters) were in favour of her, is fantastically ill informed at best, and very disingenuous if done with this knowledge.

 

Unfortunately its the system we live under; imperfect, but no one has quite come out with something better.

It's irrelevant to the point I was making Paulo, as I think you know, but couldn't disgree more on that. Plenty of 'better' voting systems IMO. In fact, in terms of 'fairness' and votes 'counting', it's nigh on the worst system.

 

But the point I was making was that, AT NO POINT did M Thatcher command anywhere near 50% or more of the popular vote, as has been peddled on here.

[mjmooney]

Has any party, ever, got over 50% of the votes in a GE?

[Jon]

Has any party, ever, got over 50% of the votes in a GE?

I would have though so Mike, back in the days when we had a genuine 2 party system (Tories Vs Whigs) 

 

These days it's a far more fractious picture, so it's not likely any more.

[PauloBarnesi]

 

 

 

...to win 3 elections shows that they had the majority of the British public with them.

No it doesn't.

I find it rather worrying that your post was 'liked' by the only person I know on here who is an elected politician (there may be others).

I thought my laughing smiley would have been enough to denigrate that pathetically ill informed post.   For the Trickster to like it says much about his motives for posting in here, IMO.

 

For the record:

 

 

1979         Tory Labour Lib/LibDem/SDP

Popular vote

13,697,923 11,532,218 4,313,804 Percentage 43.90% 36.90% 13.80%

 

 

Turnout

76%

 

 

            1983      

Popular vote

13,012,316 8,456,934 7,780,949 Percentage 42.40% 27.60% 25.40%

 

 

Turnout

72.70%

 

 

            1987      

Popular vote

13,760,935 10,029,270 7,341,651 Percentage 42.20% 30.80% 22.60%

 

 

Turnout

75.30%

 

 

   

 

Her highest share of the popular vote was 43.9%. So, well less than the majority of those that went to the polls to vote.

 

And of the 25% of the electorate who didn't either bother/want to go to the polls, I would love someone to put a cogent argument together to say these silent, apathetic or 'non-voters' were somehow 'in favour' of her.

 

To peddle a line about her 3 wins as being indicative that 'most' people (or even voters) were in favour of her, is fantastically ill informed at best, and very disingenuous if done with this knowledge.

 

Unfortunately its the system we live under; imperfect, but no one has quite come out with something better.

It's irrelevant to the point I was making Paulo, as I think you know, but couldn't disgree more on that. Plenty of 'better' voting systems IMO. In fact, in terms of 'fairness' and votes 'counting', it's nigh on the worst system.

 

But the point I was making was that, AT NO POINT did M Thatcher command anywhere near 50% or more of the popular vote, as has been peddled on here.

 

Well at least we got to vote, unlike some figures from the 80s who didn’t like the idea of democracy one bit...