Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   UK's Thatcher, rot in hell . . .
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 136 of 149 (696919)
04-19-2013 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Straggler
04-19-2013 2:02 PM


Re: Blame Game Numbers
Well I don't think she should be excused and I don't think anyone else who objects to her policies has said she should be excused either.
Ringo said that anyone criticizing Thatcher was thumbing his nose at democracy.
Well, it's not that much of a democracy, is it? At least there's no MP for Old Sarum any more ... but many people, myself included, who would criticize Thatcher also think that the UK isn't very democratic. We want more democracy, not less. We want so much democracy that a PM shouldn't be given absolute power just 'cos only 58% of the voting public voted against her.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Straggler, posted 04-19-2013 2:02 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Tangle, posted 04-19-2013 3:32 PM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 139 by Straggler, posted 04-19-2013 7:01 PM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 143 by ringo, posted 04-20-2013 12:11 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 137 of 149 (696935)
04-19-2013 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Dr Adequate
04-19-2013 2:28 PM


Re: Blame Game Numbers
Dr Adequate writes:
Well, it's not that much of a democracy, is it? At least there's no MP for Old Sarum any more ... but many people, myself included, who would criticize Thatcher also think that the UK isn't very democratic. We want more democracy, not less. We want so much democracy that a PM shouldn't be given absolute power just 'cos only 58% of the voting public voted against her.
Ok, I know i said I'd had enough of defending Thatcher who isn't someone I voted for or ever would but...
I don't know how many people didn't vote at all in the three elections her party won, but their non-votes are as important as the votes. If those people that didn't vote thought she was ruining the country they would have voted. The simple fact is that they didn't and enough people did to re-elect her.
But as I said much earlier, you had to be here at the time to actually understand what was going on. The trade unions were in charge of the country without a vote at all. I was employed by what was then the Post Office, which was a branch of the Government and contained both HM's Mail and Telecommunications. It was a closed shop - i was forced to be a member of its trade union or be fired. The trade union held a block vote at the Labour Conferenece and simply dictated what policies Labour would run with.
There were loads of mad and egocentric trade union leaders around at the time - one of them virtually closed Liverpool. Newspapers couldn't modernise and working practices had been hi-jacked.
Those policies had bankrupted and ruined Britain - we were a basket case with massive inefficiencies that had killed our major industries. Manufacturing was a joke - a British built car was a pile of loose rust that no-one wanted to buy. There was a three day week, rubbish piled in the streets and we had routine blackouts as strike after strike ground everything to a halt.
There was no way anybody but a Thatcher could change that - it had to be almost despotic and brutal, no middle way, coalition minded liberal democracy could have done what needed to be done - it had to be broken into such small pieces that it couldn't be put back together again. Then, when the nasty job had been done, she needed to be taken out and shot.
The first past the post system works well if you need to make major changes because you can elect someone, get the job done, then kick them out. We've seen only this week that Obama couldn't get some relatively non-controversial policies on gun control passed because another part of government didn't want it. That's not 'pure' democracy either - but I digress.
Thatcher was a massive figure in world politics and she admired and hated with equal love and venom - because she changed things, permanaently. And like Churchill, we dropped her like a hot brick as soon as the dirty job was done.
I never voted for her, her politics are an anathema to me and many of the things she did in her later years were just stupid and awful, but I do admire her for turning our country around. Without that we'd be in a bigger mess than Greece.
[I bumped into her - almost literally - a couple of years ago in Parliament. She was walking up some stairs I was walking down. She gave me the most amazing withering look "what the fuck are you doing on these stairs, can't you see I'm using them" kind of look. She was decrepit and looked tragic, but she still had steel in her. I almost felt sorry for her Cabinet Ministers, she could kill with that look.]

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-19-2013 2:28 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-19-2013 4:56 PM Tangle has not replied
 Message 140 by Omnivorous, posted 04-19-2013 7:24 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(4)
Message 138 of 149 (696947)
04-19-2013 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Tangle
04-19-2013 3:32 PM


Re: Blame Game Numbers
But as I said much earlier, you had to be here at the time to actually understand what was going on.
I was.
Those policies had bankrupted and ruined Britain ...
Ah yes, I remember.
Oh, and I remember this ...
Thank heaven someone came along to save the economy in 1979.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Tangle, posted 04-19-2013 3:32 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 139 of 149 (696954)
04-19-2013 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Dr Adequate
04-19-2013 2:28 PM


Re: Blame Game Numbers
Dr A writes:
Ringo said that anyone criticizing Thatcher was thumbing his nose at democracy.
I have read all of Ringo's posts in this thread and I'm not seeing that....
Well, it's not that much of a democracy, is it?
I've yet to see a perfect democratic system. I've always been an advocate of PR in the UK in one form or another but in all honesty I am increasingly sceptical it would make anyone significantly happier with whatever government that resulted in. We currently have a coalition and it still sucks turkeys and blows goats. The countries that do have PR don't seem any less fed-up with their politicians and their political system than we do.
Which country do you think the UK should emulate in terms of adopting a better system? (I'm genuinely interested to know - this isn't some sort of debate point on my part)
Dr A writes:
We want so much democracy that a PM shouldn't be given absolute power just 'cos only 58% of the voting public voted against her.
That's just hyperbolic. Firstly - The sort of 40-50 percentage of the vote that British governments generally get (Thatcher, Blair before Iraq, most others) is symptomatic of having three mainstream parties + numerous others that typically combine to get between 5-10% of the vote. In a strictly two party system the winner will get 50+% of the vote. In a multi-party system that won't necessarily, or even often, be the case. This is just numerical fact.
Secondly - It's a parliamentary democracy. "Absolute power" isn't an accurate description. It's not like Thatcher could make Nero-like proclamations to promote her horse to chancellor of the Exchequer or somesuch. She had to carry a majority of MPs with her in terms of implementing policy. MPs who were themselves elected. And (in the poll tax) it was her inability to carry others with her that eventually led to her downfall.
So "absolute power" is just a silly exaggeration.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-19-2013 2:28 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-19-2013 8:53 PM Straggler has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


(1)
Message 140 of 149 (696957)
04-19-2013 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Tangle
04-19-2013 3:32 PM


Re: Blame Game Numbers
Tangle writes:
I never voted for her, her politics are an anathema to me and many of the things she did in her later years were just stupid and awful, but I do admire her for turning our country around. Without that we'd be in a bigger mess than Greece.
It seems to me that the UK has presently inherited the Thatcher whirlwind.
Your economy is going down the toilet while your government gasps about the austere rightness of its passage.
I don't know what could be more Thatcherite than that.

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Tangle, posted 04-19-2013 3:32 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 141 of 149 (696964)
04-19-2013 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Straggler
04-19-2013 7:01 PM


Re: Blame Game Numbers
I have read all of Ringo's posts in this thread and I'm not seeing that....
Message #6.
That's just hyperbolic.
Yup.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Straggler, posted 04-19-2013 7:01 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Straggler, posted 04-20-2013 3:52 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 142 of 149 (697013)
04-20-2013 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Dr Adequate
04-19-2013 1:58 PM


Dr Adequate writes:
In none of the elections were indirect ballots cast, 'cos of there being no such thing.
On the contrary, all ballots in a representative democracy are indirect. When we vote for a representative, we know what party he/she represents and we know what principles that party represents. We are voting for those principles indirectly. The only direct vote we ever get is in a referendum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-19-2013 1:58 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 143 of 149 (697015)
04-20-2013 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Dr Adequate
04-19-2013 2:28 PM


Re: Blame Game Numbers
Dr Adequate writes:
Ringo said that anyone criticizing Thatcher was thumbing his nose at democracy.
I said to dronester:
quote:
You seem to be thumbing your nose at democracy as much as at Thatcher.
Bad reading comprehension, Doc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-19-2013 2:28 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 144 of 149 (697032)
04-20-2013 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Dr Adequate
04-19-2013 8:53 PM


Re: Blame Game Numbers
Dr A writes:
Ringo said that anyone criticizing Thatcher was thumbing his nose at democracy.
Ringo to dronester writes:
You seem to be thumbing your nose at democracy as much as at Thatcher. Message 6
You may or may not agree with Ringo's assessment of dronester's position. But it's quite an extrapolation to go from that to concluding that Ringo thinks any criticism of Thatcher by anyone equates to thumbing one's nose at democracy.
Dr A previously writes:
Indeed, if one of the American parties got as small a proportion of the vote as the Conservatives did, it would be considered a crushing defeat.
Here again are the voting percentages for the three elections Thatcher won:
1979 Con 43.9% Lab 36.9% Lib 13.8%
1983 Con 42.4% Lab 27.6% Lib 25.4%
1987 Con 42.2% Lab 30.8% Lib 22.6%
Here is Bill Clinton's winning percentage in the 1992 election - 43.0%

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-19-2013 8:53 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 145 of 149 (697148)
04-22-2013 5:21 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Straggler
04-19-2013 11:43 AM


Re: Blame Game Numbers
Well that depends what the complaint is. If the complaint is that Thatcher specifically pushed through an agenda without having 50%+ of the vote - Then it seems fair enough to point out that this is true of pretty much every UK government largely because the vote is split 3 ways.
It's true of every UK government because the British electoral system allows them to have a large majority in Parliament without a majority of the votes. Seems odd to blame the existence of more than two parties, when almost every country in the world has a multiparty system.
quote:
That's just hyperbolic. Firstly - The sort of 40-50 percentage of the vote that British governments generally get (Thatcher, Blair before Iraq, most others) is symptomatic of having three mainstream parties + numerous others that typically combine to get between 5-10% of the vote. In a strictly two party system the winner will get 50+% of the vote.
This isn't true. In a proportional system, yes it would be. But in the British system it wouldn't necessarily be the case. It depends on the distribution of support. Imagine we only had two parties, Labour and Tory. Labour win every seat in Scotland and Wales, plus all the big urban centres, with colossal majorities. The Tories win every other seat in a close fought battle.
With such a situation, Labour could easily have more votes in total, and yet still come away with less seats in Parliament.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Straggler, posted 04-19-2013 11:43 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Straggler, posted 04-22-2013 7:55 AM caffeine has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 146 of 149 (697151)
04-22-2013 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by caffeine
04-22-2013 5:21 AM


Re: Blame Game Numbers
Straggler writes:
The sort of 40-50 percentage of the vote that British governments generally get (Thatcher, Blair before Iraq, most others) is symptomatic of having three mainstream parties + numerous others that typically combine to get between 5-10% of the vote. In a strictly two party system the winner will get 50+% of the vote.
Caf writes:
This isn't true.
Yes it is. The more parties there are receiving significant numbers of votes the less likely it is any one party will receive over 50% of the vote. This is just numerical fact.
Dr A writes:
Indeed, if one of the American parties got as small a proportion of the vote as the Conservatives did, it would be considered a crushing defeat.
Clinton never achieved over 50%+ of the vote. Yet he won two elections. One of them with 43% of the vote. About the same as Thatcher. What was the unusual factor about those American elections? The presence of a third candidate.
How many significant splits there are is obviously relevant as to whether or not any one party receives 50%+ of the vote.
Caf writes:
Seems odd to blame the existence of more than two parties, when almost every country in the world has a multiparty system.
I am only "blaming" more than two parties for the fact that no one party is achieving over 50% of the vote.
Straggler writes:
If the complaint is that Thatcher specifically pushed through an agenda without having 50%+ of the vote - Then it seems fair enough to point out that this is true of pretty much every UK government largely because the vote is split 3 ways.
Caf writes:
It's true of every UK government because the British electoral system allows them to have a large majority in Parliament without a majority of the votes.
You are welcome to complain about the British electoral system. I voted against it in the recent referendum remember? But the same electoral environment is true of every other UK Prime Minister so this isn't really anything that can be tied to Thatcherism specifically.
Caf writes:
In a proportional system, yes it would be.
The UK currently has a coalition government. Here are the results for that:
2010 Con 36.1% Lab 29.0% Lib 23.0%
Now you could say that the present government got 59.1% of the vote. Or you could, on the basis that both parties have used the fact of coalition as an excuse to jettison firm manifeso pledges, say that nobody at all voted for the present programme of policies.
Which would you say?
Caf writes:
Imagine we only had two parties, Labour and Tory. Labour win every seat in Scotland and Wales, plus all the big urban centres, with colossal majorities. The Tories win every other seat in a close fought battle. With such a situation, Labour could easily have more votes in total, and yet still come away with less seats in Parliament.
"Easily"....? It's theoretically possible but has it ever actually happened? Certainly it isn't relevant to the case of Thatcher specifically. Here again are the voting percentages for the three elections Thatcher won:
1979 Con 43.9% Lab 36.9% Lib 13.8%
1983 Con 42.4% Lab 27.6% Lib 25.4%
1987 Con 42.2% Lab 30.8% Lib 22.6%

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by caffeine, posted 04-22-2013 5:21 AM caffeine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by caffeine, posted 04-22-2013 9:04 AM Straggler has replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 147 of 149 (697161)
04-22-2013 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by Straggler
04-22-2013 7:55 AM


Re: Blame Game Numbers
Yes it is. The more parties there are receiving significant numbers of votes the less likely it is any one party will receive over 50% of the vote. This is just numerical fact.
"This isn't true" referred to your claim "In a strictly two party system the winner will get 50+% of the vote", and I explained why it's not true. You ask "has this ever happened", when of course it hasn't - we've never had a strictly two-party system. It has happened often that the geographical distribution of votes has led to absurd electoral results. In one of those you list the results for, 1983, Labour and the Liberals got almost the same number of votes, yet Labour got ten times the number of seats. It's also happened a couple of times in the 20th century that the party with the most votes got less seats than the party who finished second in the popular vote.
You are welcome to complain about the British electoral system. I voted against it in the recent referendum remember? But the same electoral environment is true of every other UK Prime Minister so this isn't really anything that can be tied to Thatcherism specifically.
And I never pretended it did. I was just arguing against specific claims from earlier in the thread, it's not a general comment on Thatcherism.
The UK currently has a coalition government. Here are the results for that:
2010 Con 36.1% Lab 29.0% Lib 23.0%
Now you could say that the present government got 59.1% of the vote. Or you could, on the basis that both parties have used the fact of coalition as an excuse to jettison firm manifeso pledges, say that nobody at all voted for the present programme of policies.
Which would you say?
Well, both, obviously.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Straggler, posted 04-22-2013 7:55 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Straggler, posted 04-22-2013 10:33 AM caffeine has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 148 of 149 (697177)
04-22-2013 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by caffeine
04-22-2013 9:04 AM


Re: Blame Game Numbers
Straggler writes:
The sort of 40-50 percentage of the vote that British governments generally get (Thatcher, Blair before Iraq, most others) is symptomatic of having three mainstream parties + numerous others that typically combine to get between 5-10% of the vote. In a strictly two party system the winner will get 50+% of the vote.
Caf writes:
"This isn't true" referred to your claim "In a strictly two party system the winner will get 50+% of the vote", and I explained why it's not true.
The accusation being made was that Thatcher had no mandate becaue she failed to poll over 50% of the vote. For obvious numerical reasons where the vote is split more than two ways gaining over 50% of the vote is more difficult than in a two party system where the winner almost always does achieve over 50% of the vote. This should be mathematically obvious.
Have a look at some places where they do have a two main party system. The US and French presidential elections are in practise two party affairs most of the time. And lo and behold the winner polls 50%+ of the vote in these elections most of the time. Let's see:
France:
2012 Winner 51.64% Loser 48.36%
2007 Winner 53.06% Loser 46.94%
2002 Winner 82.21% Loser 17.79%
1995 Winner 52.64% Loser 47.36%
And so on and so forth.
US
2012 Winner 51.1% Loser 47.2%
2008 Winner 52.9% Loser 45.7%
2004 Winner 50.7% Loser 48.3%
2000 Winner 47.9% Loser 48.4% (just to show every system has it's anomolies!!!)
1996 Winner 49.2% Loser 40.7% Loser 8.4%
1992 Winner 43.0% Loser 37.5% Loser 18.9%
1988 Winner 53.4% Loser 45.7%
1984 Winner 58.8% Loser 40.6%
1980 Winner 50.8% Loser 41.0% Loser 6.6%
1976 Winner 50.1% Loser 48.0%
Unsurprisingly where there are three or more main parties/candidates all vying for votes it is considerably rarer to poll over 50% of the vote in an election. Clinton won with 43% when Ross Perot was knocking around. Thatcher 43% ish when pitted against Lib and Lab. Merkel 33% when pitted against various other German parties.....
But where there are only two main candidates the winner typically achieves over 50% of the vote.
What percentage of the vote is achieved by any given party or leader in an election has everything to do with how the vote splits between the available parties.
Your primary complaint (which I have some sympathy for - I voted for change remember?) seems to be about how power is then divvied up based on the election result. But that is a different question to this notion of 50%+ of the vote being necessary to claim any sort of "mandate" in a multi-party environment.
Caf writes:
It's also happened a couple of times in the 20th century that the party with the most votes got less seats than the party who finished second in the popular vote.
And I voted to change that system in the recent referendum but the majority of my voting compatriots voted to stay with what we have.
Straggler writes:
Now you could say that the present government got 59.1% of the vote. Or you could, on the basis that both parties have used the fact of coalition as an excuse to jettison firm manifeso pledges, say that nobody at all voted for the present programme of policies. Which would you say?
Caf writes:
Well, both, obviously.
So on average 59.1/2 = 29.55% support......
It's amazing what you can justify with numbers eh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by caffeine, posted 04-22-2013 9:04 AM caffeine has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Straggler, posted 04-24-2013 7:07 AM Straggler has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 149 of 149 (697355)
04-24-2013 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Straggler
04-22-2013 10:33 AM


Re: Blame Game Numbers
Purely because I have dug them out... Here are the German electoral stats for further comparison:
2009 33.8% 23.0% 14.6% 11.9% 10.7%
2005 35.2% 34.2% 9.8% 8.7% 8.1%
2002 38.5% 38.5% 8.6% 7.4% 4.0%
1998 40.9% 35.2% 6.7% 6.2% 5.1%
1994 41.5% 36.4% 7.3% 6.9% 4.4%
1990 43.8% 33.5% 11.0% 5.0% 2.4%
Germany has a 5 party system and no leader has ever managed to get more of the voters to vote for them than "against" them......
Because it is a multi-party system. Obviously.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Straggler, posted 04-22-2013 10:33 AM Straggler has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024