Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


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 81 of 149 (696659)
04-17-2013 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Tangle
04-17-2013 1:45 PM


That's a rather difficult point argue, given that they voted her in three times.
But they didn't. She won three elections. That's different, 'cos of the silly way the British electoral system works.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Tangle, posted 04-17-2013 1:45 PM Tangle has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Straggler, posted 04-18-2013 12:33 PM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 83 of 149 (696661)
04-17-2013 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by ringo
04-17-2013 1:51 PM


That's close enough ...
It's not remotely close.
... for anything but an argumentum ad dictionarium.
You mean, using words to mean what they say?
C'mon, the phrase "sour grapes" has an actual meaning, you can't just randomly say that what someone is saying is "sour grapes" just because you disagree with them any more than you can randomly accuse them of "flip-flopping". The phrases have a specific meaning, they don't just mean "words I can use to describe anyone who disagrees with me". If you don't want words to mean what they mean, then all I have to say to you is that you are an avuncular watermelon who frequently macerates contrapuntal anteaters while you perversely interpret inconsequential conurbations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by ringo, posted 04-17-2013 1:51 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by ringo, posted 04-18-2013 11:50 AM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 103 of 149 (696749)
04-18-2013 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by ringo
04-18-2013 11:50 AM


To paraphrase the inimitable Dr Adequate, if you had nothing to say, you could have said it much more concisely.
Are you ducking the issue intentionally?
No, I was talking about what "sour grapes" means, which is what we were talking about in our past few exchanges. If you now wish to revert to a previous question, that is not an example of me changing the subject.
The point is that Margaret Thatcher was elected democratically. Whether she was chosen by a "minority" or a "majority" is irrelevant. The fact is that she was the best choice for the greatest number of people. That fact was reaffirmed twice. If you don't like the process that was used to choose her, boo-hoo, but facts is facts.
Oh, she was elected. But my point is that what she got was a parliamentary majority, not a popular mandate. She was not merely carrying out the will of the British people, because most British people didn't even want her to be Prime Minister. She was carrying out her own ideology, independent of what the public actually wanted. So one can't excuse her by saying that she was merely an elected official doing what the people wanted to be done. A majority of them didn't want her to do those things, and they didn't want her to be Prime Minister. This is something she could have thought about, but didn't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by ringo, posted 04-18-2013 11:50 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Tangle, posted 04-18-2013 2:53 PM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 122 by ringo, posted 04-19-2013 12:06 PM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 104 of 149 (696750)
04-18-2013 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by ringo
04-18-2013 12:35 PM


As I have said, "majority" is an arbitrary and irrelevant number. Thatcher's election satisfied the largest number of people.
And dissatisfied a greater number of people.
She was elected indirectly. Elected is elected.
Oh, sure, that's why I didn't call for a revolution at the time. But, as I have said, one can't excuse her actions by saying that she was just doing what the British people wanted doing. Because of the strange British electoral system, this does not follow from the mere fact that she was elected.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by ringo, posted 04-18-2013 12:35 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by ringo, posted 04-19-2013 12:12 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

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


Message 106 of 149 (696752)
04-18-2013 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Straggler
04-18-2013 12:33 PM


Here are the voting percentages for the three elections she 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%
The missing percents are made up of the various other parties (Monster Raving Loony party, Scottish Nationalists etc. etc.)
So she consistently got more votes than any of her competitors. Whatever I may think of her and no matter how misguided I may think those who voted for her were..... we can't really deny that people were willing to persistently vote her into office.
Well, a larger proportion of people were willing to vote her out of office.
What I am complaining about is that she behaved as though a parliamentary majority was the same as a popular mandate. For example, just because a mere 58% of the voting population voted that she shouldn't be Prime Minister, this did not give her a mandate to introduce the poll tax on the grounds that this was part of her party platform. She wasn't merely doing the will of the British people by doing so just because the strange British electoral system gave her the power to do so. Therefore, she deserves some blame for doing so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Straggler, posted 04-18-2013 12:33 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Straggler, posted 04-19-2013 7:41 AM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 108 of 149 (696754)
04-18-2013 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Straggler
04-18-2013 12:42 PM


And here for comparison are the voting percentages for Blair's 3 election victories:
Lab 43.2% Con 30.7% Lib 16.8%
Lab 40.7% Con 31.7% Lib 18.3%
Lab 35.2% Con 32.4% Lib 22.0%
In terms of popular support Blair's declined over time in a way that Thatcher's never did.
Quite so. This is why I supported electoral reform while voting Labor. The fact that I supported the party did not blind me to the fact that they were being handed absolute power by a minority of the electorate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Straggler, posted 04-18-2013 12:42 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Straggler, posted 04-19-2013 7:42 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

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


Message 109 of 149 (696755)
04-18-2013 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Tangle
04-18-2013 2:53 PM


If those that didn't express a preference didn't want her to be Prime Minister, it's fair to assume that they would have voted for someone else ...
They did. Those are statistics for people who voted, not for the general population including people who didn't bother to vote.
58% of people voted for someone else. She won, but having won, should she not have taken that fact into account, instead of using her victory to push even harder for her personal ideology?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Tangle, posted 04-18-2013 2:53 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Tangle, posted 04-18-2013 3:18 PM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 111 of 149 (696760)
04-18-2013 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Tangle
04-18-2013 3:18 PM


In short, no.
In short, yes.
She had a majority, she gets to do what she campaigned on - plus a few surprises. If people don't like it in sufficient numbers, they vote her out ...
But not by 58% of them voting her out, 'cos that wasn't sufficient numbers.
Asking the winning party to moderate itself ain't much of a strategy for the losers.
As it turned out, refusing to moderate themselves was a pretty poor strategy for the winners. That's why her own party kicked Thatcher out and abolished the poll tax. That's why she left office in tears and became a bitter recluse.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Tangle, posted 04-18-2013 3:18 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Tangle, posted 04-18-2013 4:50 PM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 114 of 149 (696808)
04-18-2013 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Tangle
04-18-2013 4:50 PM


Well, as you know, that's how the game is played in the UK ...
That I never denied. My point is, and I'll say it again, that this being the case one cannot excuse Thatcher by saying that she was merely the instrument of the public will, because manifestly she wasn't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Tangle, posted 04-18-2013 4:50 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Tangle, posted 04-19-2013 2:35 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

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


Message 126 of 149 (696892)
04-19-2013 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by ringo
04-19-2013 12:06 PM


The public knew what her ideology was (or ought to have known) when they elected her. They affirmed their support for her ideology by re-electing her twice.
Except that they didn't.
You keep using the word "majority" as if it had some significance. If Thatcher had been elected by a tiny majority or a substantial majority or a huge majority, would that justify her actions any more than if she was elected by the system that is?
If she had merely been an instrument of the popular will, then that would to some degree have excused her, since if it hadn't been her it would have been someone else. But that was not the case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by ringo, posted 04-19-2013 12:06 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by ringo, posted 04-19-2013 1:32 PM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 129 of 149 (696896)
04-19-2013 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Straggler
04-19-2013 7:41 AM


Re: Blame Game Numbers
So if we follow your logic no UK government except the one of 1931 has ever had a popular mandate...
They didn't. The words "popular mandate" mean something, and yes, it describes something that no UK government since 1931 has actually had. What they've often had is an absolute majority in Parliament.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Straggler, posted 04-19-2013 7:41 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Straggler, posted 04-19-2013 1:54 PM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 130 of 149 (696898)
04-19-2013 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by ringo
04-19-2013 1:32 PM


Didn't what? Know what her ideology was? Or re-affirm their support?
Didn't vote for her.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by ringo, posted 04-19-2013 1:32 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by ringo, posted 04-19-2013 1:48 PM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 133 of 149 (696908)
04-19-2013 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by ringo
04-19-2013 1:48 PM


They voted for her indirectly.
No. In none of the elections were indirect ballots cast, 'cos of there being no such thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by ringo, posted 04-19-2013 1:48 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by ringo, posted 04-20-2013 12:02 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

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


Message 134 of 149 (696910)
04-19-2013 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Straggler
04-19-2013 1:54 PM


Re: Blame Game Numbers
OK. In which case there is no reason to single out Thatcher on that.
I didn't. I said that it wasn't an excuse in her particular case. If people tried to excuse any other British Prime Minister on the same grounds, I'd say the same thing.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Straggler, posted 04-19-2013 1:54 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Straggler, posted 04-19-2013 2:02 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024