RB73 said:Dr Rick said:RB73 said:Still don't think that is a good enough answer to explain away three terms and what was looking more than likely have been be a forth. Does it have to be fifty pecent of the vote when the nearest rival is so far behind?
In 1979 they led Labour by seven percentage points. In every subsequent election they got a lower percentage than in 1979! The Tories were incredibly well served by the divisions of the left.
There was certainly never a time when a clear and marked majority of the populace were not anti-Thatcher.
As to fascism, let us simply remark that that certainly wasn't the reason that Augusto Pinochet's personal friend and unflappable defender took us to war...
So having a percentage lead over your rival does actually count as winning.
Would you have allowed the invasion to stand with just a shrug of your shoulders.
Bloody glad i don't vote for either of them.
Scargill's keeping very quite though, wonder why.
RB73 said:shavecraft said:RB73 said:I'm a little puzzled, whilst I wasn't of age to vote through the late seventies to early nineties, how did this woman stay in office for three terms, two by fairly bloody huge margins and up until she was kyboshed by members of her own party, mainly that low down Europro traitor ponce Heseltine, she probably would have seen a fourth term.
Just asking like.
My quick thoughts on that Richard. Our less than fully democratic electoral system (I think I'm right in saying Thatcher never secured as much as 50% of the vote). Labour were in a mess. A (then as now) predominantly right wing media. And, I know this might push a few buttons, but I'll risk it anyway...a lot of folk don't know what side their bread's buttered...any low paid worker, for example, who votes Tory is an eedjit IMO. Awaits brickbats :s
As n when we have to suffer a Tory government I would far rather it was under a one-nation type Tory like Heser than the divisive, vicious, destructiveness of Thatcher.
Still don't think that is a good enough answer to explain away three terms and what was looking more than likely have been be a forth. Does it have to be fifty pecent of the vote when the nearest rival is so far behind?
soapalchemist said:You forgot Jingoism.:angel:
Not the very real threat of nuclear war, or the Fascist invasion of the Falklands.
Jeltz said:The strength of the unions back then is totally alien to us now, I tried to explain the concept of the closed shop to a youngster and their reaction was surely that would have been illegal.
If we are without broadband for more than 10 minutes these days its a calamity, but back then rubbish piled up in the streets, there were power cuts and grave diggers refusing to bury the dead all because the unions had the power to.
It seems to me that the unions had put pay to British industry by the time Thatcher came to power what she did was to cut away the dead wood. The suffering was dreadful as all the pain was experienced at one time, that was because the parts of industry which should have declined naturally over the preceding years had been propped up on demand of the Unions.
shavecraft said:Right to buy bought a whole bunch of votes from what was largely hitherto a natural Labour constituency.
Regarding industrial reform under Thatcher Jeltz, the baby was thrown out with the bath water. Her reforms, much of which I would personally describe as vandalism of a treasonous magnitude, were as politically motivated as they were economic.
Bechet45 said:Thatcher used the power of the State to crush the workers of this country rather than build new, attractive industries and jobs.
UKRob said:Bechet45 said:Thatcher used the power of the State to crush the workers of this country rather than build new, attractive industries and jobs.
Then who the fuck kept on voting her into power? Non workers, the idle rich?
A minority of the population who had views such as yours and who got past the post first.
Fact is mate, there were more people glad to see the union stranglehold removed than those who preferred it. As for industrial stagnation - that started years before she ever came into a position of influence.
UKRob said:shavecraft said:Right to buy bought a whole bunch of votes from what was largely hitherto a natural Labour constituency.
Regarding industrial reform under Thatcher Jeltz, the baby was thrown out with the bath water. Her reforms, much of which I would personally describe as vandalism of a treasonous magnitude, were as politically motivated as they were economic.
I've just got to respond to this Shavecraft. Are you seriously suggesting that the labour strongholds were so grateful to Maggie for allowing them to buy their own house that they pledged to support her for the next 10 years?
And as for the baby being thrown out with the bathwater - what baby? If you think it wrong that someone should have a choice whether to join a union as opposed to be foreced to via a closed shop; if you think it right that someone should be able to tell you that you must stop work without asking your opinion; if you think it right that left wing agitators should have carte blanche to bully, harrass, threaten and beat you up because you decide to make your own mind up on an issue - then I suggest that your opinion is at odds with the majority of decent people who wanted a strike and strife free country.
Take a look at the numbers of union members pre and post the legislation - less than half. Does that tell you anything about choice.
RB73 said:I'm a little puzzled, whilst I wasn't of age to vote through the late seventies to early nineties, how did this woman stay in office for three terms, two by fairly bloody huge margins and up until she was kyboshed by members of her own party, mainly that low down Europro traitor ponce Heseltine, she probably would have seen a fourth term.
Just asking like.
Bechet45 said:UKRob said:Bechet45 said:Thatcher used the power of the State to crush the workers of this country rather than build new, attractive industries and jobs.
Then who the fuck kept on voting her into power? Non workers, the idle rich?
A minority of the population who had views such as yours and who got past the post first.
Fact is mate, there were more people glad to see the union stranglehold removed than those who preferred it. As for industrial stagnation - that started years before she ever came into a position of influence.
The Unions had grown very powerful - a reaction to Capitalism seeking better opportunities abroad. I wqs sea-going in those days and saw a British company being allowed to rot and then finding a new shipyard and/or drydock being opened by the same company in Singapore, say.
Industrial stagnation started after WWII. All things conspired to come to a head and Maggie stepped in to destroy. Many things needed to be changed - on both sides of industry - but re-building could have done that. Maggie chose destruction and the reassertion of the Establishment in place of power over the working folk of UK. No wonder Blair came along with his 'Partnership' attitudes!
But we digress, this thread is about Maggie being dead. Hurrah!
I suppose a good question for you, Rob, is why is she so very much hated by so very many people if she was a power for good in UK. Not disliked. Hated!
Fido said:Maggie was obviously hated by very many people. But I suspect that a very significant majority don't share that emotion. Those that hate are far more likely to express their opinions than those who appreciated her achievements.
Fido said:Maggie was obviously hated by very many people. But I suspect that a very significant majority don't share that emotion. Those that hate are far more likely to express their opinions than those who appreciated her achievements.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?