Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   UK's Thatcher, rot in hell . . .
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(4)
Message 32 of 149 (696508)
04-16-2013 1:18 PM


Private Funeral
Thatcher's funeral should be privatised. Far from being state funded or using public money for security arrangements etc. it should instead be tendered out and sold to the highest bidder who would then be contractually responsible for security and suchlike. The state would then make money from the event and the successful bidder could sell tickets to the event for a profit. If this event is unable to be sold for a profit then it should just be abandoned as economically unviable.
This would be far more in keeping with the principles Thatcher promoted.

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


Message 91 of 149 (696711)
04-18-2013 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Dr Adequate
04-17-2013 1:48 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-17-2013 1:48 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Straggler, posted 04-18-2013 12:42 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 106 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-18-2013 2:50 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 95 of 149 (696716)
04-18-2013 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Straggler
04-18-2013 12:33 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Straggler, posted 04-18-2013 12:33 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-18-2013 2:54 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 116 of 149 (696853)
04-19-2013 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Dr Adequate
04-18-2013 2:50 PM


Blame Game Numbers
Dr A writes:
Well, a larger proportion of people were willing to vote her out of office.
To vote her out of office they would have needed to vote for someone else with a realistic chance of beating her. Evidently not enough people were willing to do that. In three consecutive elections.
But lacking 50%+ of the vote is really just a feature of a multi-party election. If I remember correctly only a single UK election since women were given the vote has resulted in a single party garnering over 50% of the vote. That was in 1931.
So if we follow your logic no UK government except the one of 1931 has ever had a popular mandate........... Even if you want to argue that this is true it seems unnecessary to single out Thatcher given that it applies to every other Prime Minister (except one - Stanley Baldwin of 1931 - I just looked it up as the details had escaped me)
Dr A writes:
What I am complaining about is that she behaved as though a parliamentary majority was the same as a popular mandate.
I don't think she gave too much of a shit about having a popular mandate. Politicians will cite popular mandate when they can get away with it and it suits them to do so and ignore it (or proclaim themselves able to make "difficult decisons") when they can't. Thatcher isn't unique in this respect either.
Dr A writes:
Therefore, she deserves some blame for doing so.
I do blame her. I also blame those who voted for her.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-18-2013 2:50 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by caffeine, posted 04-19-2013 10:19 AM Straggler has replied
 Message 129 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-19-2013 1:33 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 117 of 149 (696854)
04-19-2013 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Dr Adequate
04-18-2013 2:54 PM


Dr A writes:
This is why I supported electoral reform while voting Labor.
Me too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-18-2013 2:54 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

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


Message 118 of 149 (696857)
04-19-2013 9:04 AM


Political Correctness Gone Mad
One aspect of recent events that I quite enjoyed was watching those on the right who normally consider it their moral right, indeed obligation, to express their prejudices in whatever manner they choose and without regard for consequence clamouring for a song from a childrens movie to be banned from public broadcast.
It gave me the opportunity to tell them that they were engaging in "political correctness gone mad"......
Ding Dong.

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


Message 121 of 149 (696869)
04-19-2013 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by caffeine
04-19-2013 10:19 AM


Re: Blame Game Numbers
Caf writes:
The problem is not with having more than two parties.
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.
Caf writes:
The problem is with an absurd and anachronistic electoral system that means votes don't match a party's representation in Parliament.
I voted for voting reform when it was put to referendum recently. However that referendum went the way of maintaining the status quo. So we can blame the electorate for the ongoing use of the present system.
Caf writes:
If Britain had a normal electoral system, the conservatives would have been forced to find allies, and wouldn't have been able to force through their programme against everyone else's complaints.
I used to think that too. Increasingly I think the present conservative led administration wouldn't be able to get away with some of the more extreme things it is now doing but for the fact it is being shielded by the Lib Dems....
Caf writes:
The same would have gone for Blair.
I think having to partner with the Lib Dems probably would have curbed the worst excesses of Blair's authoratarian streak with regard to "security" measures and suchlike.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by caffeine, posted 04-19-2013 10:19 AM caffeine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by caffeine, posted 04-22-2013 5:21 AM Straggler has replied

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


Message 132 of 149 (696906)
04-19-2013 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Dr Adequate
04-19-2013 1:33 PM


Re: Blame Game Numbers
OK. In which case there is no reason to single out Thatcher on that.
There are numerous things we could single her out for. Many of which I would do so. But this majority popular vote thing isn't one of them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-19-2013 1:33 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-19-2013 1:58 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 135 of 149 (696911)
04-19-2013 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Dr Adequate
04-19-2013 1:58 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.
The simple point here is that without people voting for her she would have been nothing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-19-2013 1:58 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-19-2013 2:28 PM Straggler has 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

  
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

  
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

  
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