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'

Aye, and we'll keep unemployment high enough to make you grateful.

Did it remind you of how much successive governments had, for a decade or so, been taking money out of these industries and utilities and not re-investing it in them?

And did it discuss how 'selling off the family silver' not only left the country pretty much without any internal control, over what it needs to power it, and domestic customers in particular have been able to watch their bills spiral?

Even the forums on the [iTelegraph[/i have, over the last year or so, seen commentators grumbling that perhaps privatisation was not all that it was cracked up to be.

And indeed, the fact that we (the taxpayer) still subsidises transport, for instance, is an indicator as to exactly who has benefited from privatisation.

How can you cremate someone who is already burning in hell. I hope my dad, the old pit man, is having a sly smile where ever he is .

There are a number of people who agree with you about those industries and, to be fair, they have a point.
But their point is blunted when the same people start moaning that the unemployed should be made to work for their dole.
Inconsistency is so easy.

And yet the fundamental principle of Thatcherism was that EVERYONE would have the chance of doing well.

Time was when in order to get a job in the City you had to be public school educated and called Smithers Ponsonby-Smyth.
After the Big Bang you could get the same job being called Alf Muck.

Traditional Labour had a vested interest in keeping a large "working class", for wont of a better word, "down".
Tradtional Tory had a vested interest in keeping a large "working class", for wont of a better word, "down".

Thatcher offered the opportunity to everyone.

You can argue with her methods, and the alternatives, but you cannot deny this.

There is an argument for nationalisation of certain natural monopolies. The problem is that employees in a monopoly, state owned or private, tend to fall behind in the productivity stakes.

For any company this isn't an issue for non stakeholders. The difference is that for a public company those stakeholders are the taxpayers.

And yet the irony is that, in the past 30 years, social mobility has decreased.