Right. My sister‘s coming to stay with me today, so you lot can spend the weekend reading other ‘Blogs or dead trees or just talking amongst yourselves.
How about this?
“The so-called ‘Iron Lady’ of the international stage, Margaret Thatcher was, for the most part, a pragmatist in domestic matters, who disguised the timidity of her reforms and her weakness in the face of genuinely powerful segments of the establishment by picking off easy targets and noisily proclaiming a resolve that was, in fact, a projection of her admirers in the media.”
That PG’s a card, isn’t he? Sort of fella’ that drops a deadly smelly in a crowded room and then sneaks off to the kitchen to watch the result. Never mind, with hankie clutched to nose I will take up his challenge.
Like any political leader, Mrs. T. did not achieve all that she might have wished for, but you need to have lived through the ’70s to appreciate the magnitude of her success. After 40 years of accumulating trade union strength and arrogance, she brought the monster to its knees. Similarly, she demonstrated to a people who had never even considered the possibility before, that services hitherto provided by the state (so long as you went along to queue with cap in hand, could be provided much quicker and better by private enterprise. (And before anyone starts on about the railways, let me tell you that you needed to have lived with the ghastly British Rail before you make comparisons!)
Also, you need to have lived with the orthodoxies since the end of WWII to appreciate what a revolution she carried out. Currencies left for the market place to price so that governments couldn’t hide the true nature of their own economies!!! It was a like a Bateman cartoon with 350 economists signing a letter to the TImes telling us the woman was mad. I wonder where they are now?
Yes, there were things she failed to grip but “there is a tide in the affairs of men” and it wasn’t the vested interests which scared her off the NHS and the so-called education service, it was the British people themselves who even today are reluctant to believe the evidence of their own eyes. (But it will come!)
In the end, there was one vested interest she couldn’t kill off – the Tory party. Philosophically and politically she was a 19th c. liberal and she nicked the Tory party from under their silly noses. They never wanted her, liked her or forgave her, and in the end they got her. The consequent decline of their party is a monument to their chauvinism, their stupidity and their corruption.
Now, tell me, exactly what has Tony Blair *actually* achieved?
David, for someone who translates his (right-wing) thoughts into print at every possible opportunity, have you never considered taking a course in basic English grammar? I think you will find that readers tend to attach a little more credence to your comments if they can see that you are able to write reasonable English.
I say this because I noted that in your last comment on PG’s Weblog you used an adjective (quicker) where an adverb (more quickly) was required.
I’m sure that if you made the effort you could find a correspondence course in basic English grammar which you could subscribe to. Just think of the rewards! People might even begin to take you seriously!
Greg is a teacher! How do I know? Elementary, my dear Watson. Firstly, he’s a socialist, and secondly, he’s a pedant; both defining characteristics of what is laughingly known as the teaching ‘profession’ – stop giggling at the back!
To paraphrase Wilde (an impertinence, I know), Greg knows the grammatical price of everything and the stylish value of nothing. Consequently he would prefer to read “…much more quickly and better…” because it is Korrect! rather than “…much quicker and better…” which is perfectly clear and flows more easily. And this from a man who ends a sentence on a preposition; “…which you could subscribe to.” instead of the more elegant and iambically more pleasing “…to which you could subscribe.”
However, honesty impels me to admit that my grammar is often incorrect (although I delude myself that it is always readable), not least because, as I pointed out in another comment on this site, I am a self-taught, Uni-of Life man. When, I suspect, that Greg and the other clever fellows who frequent this blog, were at university learning to be even more clever, I was a ‘Tom’ in the British army and ‘conjugating my participles’, or whatever, was not high on the list of priorities.
Finally, can I ask if anyone out there has some new collective noun for differences in political philosophies. It seems to me that ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ are simply meaningless today. Mrs. Thatcher is a prime example of what I mean. She was never a Tory in the traditional meaning of the word. She was nearer to being a 19th c. liberal with her belief in small government and free trade. So, you clever-clogs out there, come up with some new titles. But hurry, you know who is back tomorrow!
The rational and the irrrational?
The sane and the insane?
Those who would feed rounds into your machine gun to help fight terrorists and those who would stab you in th back and praise terrorists as an authentic uprising of the oppressed?