[url=http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/sns-201304101600--tms--cthomastq--b-a20130411-20130411,0,4328092.columnChicago Tribune columnist obviously hasn't seen Spitting Image[/url

[i"Following her election in 1979, the story goes that Thatcher took her all-male cabinet out to dinner. The waiter asked what she would like. "I'll have the beef," she said. The waiter asked, "What about the vegetables?" "They'll have the same," Thatcher replied."[/i

:32n8d658

Well I have been away in Edinburgh for a few days and I get back to a 72 page thread on this topic. Hardly a surprise and I aint going to read all 72 pages but I have spotted your comment and can't resist not replying.

In response to the above the charge of hypocrisy only sticks if those rather pleased at her passing hadn't posted they couldn't wait for it in the first place. Whether you agree or not I am pretty certain several of the most vociferous aren't being in the least bit hypocritical.

As a general point I am quite glad there are plenty of dissenting voices who's opinions will prevent her death and funeral being portrayed in such a way that it looks to the rest of the world she is perceived as some kind of heroine to the majority of the UK population.

I quite agree. The idea she warrants such an affair [iis[/i astonishing. It puts her on a pedestal with Churchill himself and while if you examine his politics outside of his war leadership time there is plenty to disagree with I am sure there were very few in the UK at the time of his death who would have complained at his funeral arrangements.



The should have simply agreed with the Speaker and made it clear that was the case.

Thats actually quite an important point, despite what a compliant written media would like us to think the eyes of the rest of the world won't be on Thatchers funeral on Wednesday but they will tag two or three minutes onto their news programs at some point during their day and as I've already mentioned, opposition to the funeral and the person is the element that they will focus on, if and when it happens - the UK iTunes campaign is one peaceful measure of protest, meaningless to most, offensive only to those who are told to be offended by a compliant written media, and yet its being reported upon, its achieved its objective.

On a wider point the freedom and ease by which protests can be quickly organised mainly via the internet is something that many in government still find hard to understand, I have an MP who responds to emails very quickly and who tweets every minute of his waking day, I can tell you what he's doing this morning if you want me to, and yet how many others do, how many people on here for instance would know how to contact their MP via social media or email ?

tut tut. grammar Timothy

Pah!

"Just do enough", it's been my mantra through life.

Watching QTime last night reminded of a few things about that time:
1. The amount of state run industries and losses these industries made
2. The level of inflation 18% - whatever you say about Friedman controlling inflation was one of the central planks of his theory.
3. The interference of unions in progress - e.g. Brenda Dean and the print industry
4. The perception of Britain worldwide as a the sick man of Europe
5. How we could have used Oil revenues more productively

At least 5, arguably 6 grammatical errors in one post. Tut-tut!

And as Ha-Joon Chang explains, chasing very, very low inflation can be negative and, indeed, a certain level of inflation does no intrinsic damage.

Friedman and the Chicago School believed – as did Reagan, Thatcher and others – that something that had never worked in the past would suddenly work. It didn't. There was no 'trickle down'. Those at the very top did very well – everyone else did progressively worse.

Therein lies the tragedy of what was once a proud party that vigorously opposed tory excesses.

Labour now places PR before conviction.

It also helps the young lady is a bit tasty too.

Or 'we will eat the cake and if your good you can catch the crumbs as they fall'