the problem with comparisons for one is it ignores the possibility that things might have gotten better wihtout any change of government policy.

Policies had largely stayed the same for 15 or 20 years before then and things had gotten worse and worse culminating in the disasterour Callaghan reign. You are right we will never know for sure but the indication was that things would have continued to get worse.

the other problem is.....how far did it all really need to go?

That is the most debated question about the era. I don't think anyone could argue that things did not need to change but she could have done so in a more friendly (for lack of a better word) manner.

she was divisive. How much of it was really due to her?

Most of it - if not all. Certainly in the early days. Lets take the Miners strike and other Labour disruption as an example. In the 1970's the government was essentially being run by a cabal of unelected Union leaders that were bringing the country to its knees. They destroyed Heath, and Callaghan and were essentially holding the country to ransom. Margaret Thatcher was the only one prepared to take them on.

Now it is true that some shift in policy was needed but it isn't true that Margaret Thatcher was needed. Plenty of centre left parties around the world have instituted economic change. I'm sorry, but conservative parties do not own economic reform.

For Margaret Thatcher see above. I agree that Conservatives do not own economic reform but in this context they were the only ones presenting it.

and yet people have turned their back on anything more radical. They don't want it. This has happened all around hte world. What the people want is better services provided by the government which is not what Margaret Thatcher was interested in.

What do you think she was interested in?

People also don't mind privatisation, but hell, let's actually have a proper plan for it.

Here I agree. Though specifically what privatisation are you talking about? British Telecom and BP were handled very well. The trains weren't though this was under the Major governments. Privatisation is good as long as it is done well. Done poorly and it can be very bad.

Let's also not forget the Falklands war. Let's also not forget that in the end not even her own party wanted her.

What about the Falklands War? Her own party did get rid of her but I think you present it out of context.

smart suits and backdrops? This is copying her? It's modern campaigning. Reach beyond their party? This article gets worse and worse. They emulated her style

It was a very poor comparison.

to risk voting labour? What an almighty stupid statement. She may have jumped in the opinion polls and he may have followed her, but pandering to racist sentiment is never an admirable thing.

It was a stupid statement. I think I understand what he is trying to say, but says something different and so should be treated with the scorn you rightly show.

crap crap crap. Puerile crap. Sorry sir excalibur but this article wont include anything apart from a few stupid comparisons so I wont either.

Well I'm not sure about the "Politics of Or", but Tony Blair certainly stands for the "Politics of And" it is virtually a dictionary definition of the third way.

you know I actually read the downing street years. Really not all that impressive.

I have not read it but would like to. I have read other works of hers.

so in another 15 years it wont all be a distant memory either?

I don't think she will be just a distant memory. Whatever you think about Mrs Thatcher she fundamentally changed Britain and that will be remembered whereas Blair has not (as of yet).


Sir Excalibur

Knight of Wotmania
AC (Companion of the Order of Aviendha)

Knight Protector of Queen Aviendha ,
Rightful Queen of the Message Board ,
High Lady of the River Mississippi