Brexit? What happens now?

[Liar]

What happens now? Don't ask Nigel. He want no part in taking responsibility for the future of the country he "took back".

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/04/nigel-farage-resigns-as-ukip-leader

I am (Union) Jack's complete lack of surprise.

 

[srgreene]

The Grocer's Daughter

Thanks to both you and DeYaKen for cordial and informative responses. Since you both make comparable points, I'll respond to you both in this comment. I think you both know more about UK politics than I ever will, so I will make use of the one book I've read about the Lady, the sympathetic but critical "The Iron Lady" by John Campbell.

"she used what you call housing projects to bribe the residents into reelecting her"

Campbell make the point that as a shadow Environment Secretary, she somewhat reluctantly complied with Ted Heath's demand for "a short-term electoral bribe, but one consistent with the long-standing Conservative philosophy of encouraging home-ownership." Among the policies she proposed were capping mortgage interest rates at 9.5% and offering tenants at 33% discount to help them buy their homes. I'd say that sounds like a reasonable approach to the government getting out of a business it never should have been in the first place. Why do you think government should be in the housing business?

But Thatcher viewed the sale of housing to tenants in a philosophical framework: she thought that government had no business providing except housing except for for special categories such as the elderly and disabled. Moreover, she regarded "council estates"- what Americans call "projects" as breeding grounds for crime, vandalism, and dependency. Based on the American experience and a shared philosophy, I'm inclined to agree: government's role is not to provide you with a house. While your claim of an electoral bribe may have applied to Heath, I think you are making a cynical and unwarranted assumption about Thatcher: she was a true believer in privatization.

"The problems you now have, of jobs being exported to places with cheaper labour or energy, we had under Thatcher because she decided that Britain didn't need manufacturing. "

That is an impressively biased way of putting it. A rather more accurate assessment would be that she believed British industry needed to compete with the rest of the world and that those companies that could not compete needed to suffer the consequences. You seem to be endorsing a kind of "lemon socialism" in which certain businesses get some form of government largesse at the expense of the taxpayer. Phooey on that idea! State control invariably favors some businesses at the expense of others, inevitably leads to some type of state planning and the stifling of private initiative, and Thatcher, to her credit, moved the UK away from that abysmal model. Allow me to note that UK companies that can compete internationally do so today- Rolls Royce, which she privatized, being a prime example.

"she presided over the greatest growth in inequality Britain has ever known."

I question your claim (think Dickens or feudal England), but my reaction is, "So what?" When the Lady was grilled about inequality by a Labour MP in Parliament, she noted his concern for inequality ignored the improvement in living standards that the majority of Brits experienced under her leadership. I suspect it is true that capitalism will tend to produce a few quite wealthy people, a small minority of poor people, and a large majority of "middle class" folks, and I for one have no problem with that.

"She deregulated banking and set the trend which basically said that these people were far too smart to be regulated by mere mortals. You know what a disaster that turned out to be."

No, actually I don't know. I do know that London is arguably the premier banking and financial capital of the world today, so they must be doing something right. You seem to adhere to the idea that despite the unending failure of statist economies from the Soviet Union, to East Europe, to North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela, that "liberal" elites with "good" intentions can direct human activities better than the experimental process of free human interaction and the competitiveness of free minds and free markets. I submit they cannot: free minds and free markets work, and nothing else does.

I also know from US experience how the term "banking deregulation" is abused to refer to something that clearly is not deregulation. In the USA in the 1990's, so-called "deregulation" that was actually anything but, left in place and actually increased government incentives that helped create a real estate bubble of enormous and unsustainable proportions. My impression is the UK had a similar dynamic.

Allow me to close by quoting from the final paragraph in Campbell's book:

"Over a period of nearly thirty years Thatcherism release a huge amount of economic energy, created a great deal of new wealth and delivered many social benefits- as well as some enduring costs."

Along with Campbell, I would note that today's solutions inevitably lead to tomorrow's problems.

 

[srgreene]

How 'Brexit' was won by lies.

http://www.scottishreview.net/KennethRoy69a.html

Seems to me, the only "lie" the article cited was the "pledge to give the NHS the £350m a week which it claimed was being sent to Brussels." Well perhaps a gross simplification, but allow me to point out the following:

365 million x 52 =~ 19 billion

The fact that the UK gets 5 billion back and another 4 billion in subsidies (after Brussels takes its "management fee") does not deny the simple arithmetic- in fact, it would seem to be a very poor return for the British taxpayer. Moreover, I suspect much of those 4 bn in subsidies are very poor deals for the British economy.

But hey, across the Pond we are used to that sort of thing. Our president told us, "If you like your insurance, you can keep it". Ha ha ha- what a howler that was.

But the real point of the article as I read it was that the Leave campaign realized the importance of connecting with voters on an emotional level. That may indicate a flaw in the entire idea of popular referendums on national issues. Such referendums seem to me to fly in the face of what a representative democracy is all about.

 

[DeYaKen]

Thanks to both you and DeYaKen for cordial and informative responses. Since you both make comparable points, I'll respond to you both in this comment. I think you both know more about UK politics than I ever will, so I will make use of the one book I've read about the Lady, the sympathetic but critical "The Iron Lady" by John Campbell.

Campbells book is an approved biography. therefore there is nothing in it that the Thatcher family did not approve of. You must also realise that her Altzheimer's was getting a grip on her by the time it was written.

"she used what you call housing projects to bribe the residents into reelecting her"

Campbell make the point that as a shadow Environment Secretary, she somewhat reluctantly complied with Ted Heath's demand for "a short-term electoral bribe, but one consistent with the long-standing Conservative philosophy of encouraging home-ownership." Among the policies she proposed were capping mortgage interest rates at 9.5% and offering tenants at 33% discount to help them buy their homes. I'd say that sounds like a reasonable approach to the government getting out of a business it never should have been in the first place. Why do you think government should be in the housing business?

The government were never involved in the housing market that was the realm of the local authority. However, much like the communist countries that she so detested, she brought most thing under central government control. Mortgage interest was never capped to 9.5% for most people, Most of us were paying 15% or more. Only the people who had bought their property at two-thirds of the market price qualified for a capped rate. There were no safeguards so those who bought them were able to sell them after a short period and many did sell to private landlords. Effectively the government gave those people £60,000 or more. Would you vote for a government that had given you $100,000? Of course, you would. That is why it was referred to as a bribe.

But Thatcher viewed the sale of housing to tenants in a philosophical framework: she thought that government had no business providing except housing except for for special categories such as the elderly and disabled. Moreover, she regarded "council estates"- what Americans call "projects" as breeding grounds for crime, vandalism, and dependency. Based on the American experience and a shared philosophy, I'm inclined to agree: government's role is not to provide you with a house. While your claim of an electoral bribe may have applied to Heath, I think you are making a cynical and unwarranted assumption about Thatcher: she was a true believer in privatization.

If it was ideology that drove the sell off, they could have been sold to non-profit housing associations. That would have complied with the principle that local government should not be in the business of housing without handing out large sums of money to private individuals. Handing the cash to the individual can only be seen as a means of ingratiating the governing party with a sector of the community that had never supported them. As I said Campbells biography was approved which may explain why he got his timeline wrong. The right to buy legislation was never passed under Heath but some ten years later.

"The problems you now have, of jobs being exported to places with cheaper labour or energy, we had under Thatcher because she decided that Britain didn't need manufacturing. "

That is an impressively biased way of putting it. A rather more accurate assessment would be that she believed British industry needed to compete with the rest of the world and that those companies that could not compete needed to suffer the consequences. You seem to be endorsing a kind of "lemon socialism" in which certain businesses get some form of government largesse at the expense of the taxpayer. Phooey on that idea! State control invariably favors some businesses at the expense of others, inevitably leads to some type of state planning and the stifling of private initiative, and Thatcher, to her credit, moved the UK away from that abysmal model. Allow me to note that UK companies that can compete internationally do so today- Rolls Royce, which she privatized, being a prime example.

If it was a biased way of putting it then it was one chosen by the lady herself. She made a speech to that effect. She told us that Britains future depended on services and what she called "The Sunrise Industries" (she meant computing and technological development )

Rolls Royce cars is no longer a British company. It is wholly owned by Volkswagen. The Nationalisation of Rolls -Royce is a classic example of how a government can help. It was nationalised by Heath in 1971 following a collapse caused by terrible mismanagement disguised by inventive accounting. by 1989 the aero engine business was back in profit so the company was sold off again. It is actually a spectacular advertisement for government intervention. By taking it into public ownership, Heath not only protected thousands of jobs but also guaranteed supply for our own military and a large number of airlines. It was never intended to be permanent. Margaret Thatcher simply completed Heath's original plan. However, I never suggested that she should have nationalised the industries. She could have offered loan guarantees and limited import controls to give the industries time to sort out their problems. The "No lame ducks" was actually a mantra for her government. Loan guarantees were offered to companies like Acorn computers but denied to companies like BSA. Her government aided by our right wing press blamed "Lazy British Workers" These are the same workers who now proudly operate one of the most efficient car plants in the world.

"she presided over the greatest growth in inequality Britain has ever known."

I question your claim (think Dickens or feudal England), but my reaction is, "So what?" When the Lady was grilled about inequality by a Labour MP in Parliament, she noted his concern for inequality ignored the improvement in living standards that the majority of Brits experienced under her leadership. I suspect it is true that capitalism will tend to produce a few quite wealthy people, a small minority of poor people, and a large majority of "middle class" folks, and I for one have no problem with that.

I didn't say the greatest inequality, I said the biggest RISE in inequality. You experienced a similar rise and look at the results. Higher crime rates, poorer health, a huge rise in personal debt, prisons bursting at the seams. Compare that to the country with the most equality of earnings, Japan. They have longer life expectancy, lower crime, very low prison population and people are happier and healthier. Japan is not alone, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Germany all have much higher equality of income. They also have very successful economies, a happier and healthier population, low crime and much smaller prison populations. Your country and mine has seen a widening of the gap in earnings and are paying the price. I am told you have states which spend more on prisons than they do on schools. It wasn't like that in the fifties and sixties when the level of income equality was much higher.

"She deregulated banking and set the trend which basically said that these people were far too smart to be regulated by mere mortals. You know what a disaster that turned out to be."

No, actually I don't know. I do know that London is arguably the premier banking and financial capital of the world today, so they must be doing something right.

So you are unaware that one of our banks went bust while another two had to be taken into public ownership because the country could not afford to let them fail. One of those banks is still 100% owned by the state and another is still 50% publicly owned. With no one looking over their shoulder and management which rewarded any level of risk taking as long as it increased the size of the loans book, the bubble burst. They were drastically under capitalised so when people started taking their money out the banks failed.

You seem to adhere to the idea that despite the unending failure of statist economies from the Soviet Union, to East Europe, to North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela, that "liberal" elites with "good" intentions can direct human activities better than the experimental process of free human interaction and the competitiveness of free minds and free markets. I submit they cannot: free minds and free markets work, and nothing else does.

I never said anything about those countries, however, in the way Margaret Thatcher centralised the control of everything at Westminster, her government had a lot in common with those countries.

Far from advocating what amounts to a dictatorship with a Marxist face. I would just point you in the direction of all the countries where they combine a free market economy with a high level of social responsibility. Equality works, inequality leaves you with a level of debt that you can't sustain. Just look at the way both of our countries' debts have risen during the time they have endured the high levels of inequality that they now have.

I also know from US experience how the term "banking deregulation" is abused to refer to something that clearly is not deregulation. In the USA in the 1990's, so-called "deregulation" that was actually anything but, left in place and actually increased government incentives that helped create a real estate bubble of enormous and unsustainable proportions. My impression is the UK had a similar dynamic.

In the UK we had banks offering 125% mortgages based on the idea that property would increase in value. This was not government policy it was banks acting on their own initiative in order to increase the size of their loan book and therefore their assets and share price. You must also be familiar with the idea of buying up sub-prime mortgage debt for the same reason. You will probably also be familiar with the manipulation of exchange rates by operating as a cartel. Last but by no means least we have the manipulation of the interbank lending rate. None of this was due to government action, quite the reverse. Because they could do what they liked under a policy self-regulation, that is exactly what they did.

Allow me to close by quoting from the final paragraph in Campbell's book:

"Over a period of nearly thirty years Thatcherism release a huge amount of economic energy, created a great deal of new wealth and delivered many social benefits- as well as some enduring costs."

Along with Campbell, I would note that today's solutions inevitably lead to tomorrow's problems.

About what you would expect from an authorised biography

 

[DeYaKen]

Seems to me, the only "lie" the article cited was the "pledge to give the NHS the £350m a week which it claimed was being sent to Brussels." Well perhaps a gross simplification, but allow me to point out the following:

365 million x 52 =~ 19 billion

The fact that the UK gets 5 billion back and another 4 billion in subsidies (after Brussels takes its "management fee") does not deny the simple arithmetic- in fact, it would seem to be a very poor return for the British taxpayer. Moreover, I suspect much of those 4 bn in subsidies are very poor deals for the British economy.

But hey, across the Pond we are used to that sort of thing. Our president told us, "If you like your insurance, you can keep it". Ha ha ha- what a howler that was.

But the real point of the article as I read it was that the Leave campaign realized the importance of connecting with voters on an emotional level. That may indicate a flaw in the entire idea of popular referendums on national issues. Such referendums seem to me to fly in the face of what a representative democracy is all about.

The reason that was an outright lie is that Britain does not and never has sent £365million to Brussels. We get a rebate of about £80 million a week which is deducted before anything is paid. the amount sent to the EU is closer to £278million so the claim was an outright lie and everyone using it knew that.

After farm subsidies and regional support grants are returned our net cost is about £8billion per year. This represents less than 1% of the government's pension and social security bill. England is a net contributor, Scotland, with its small population, is a net receiver. That is the way the EU works.

If we say that the EU levy is 1.5% then the first 1.5% of any transaction on which VAT (a bit like your sales tax) is paid, goes to Brussels. The bigger your economy the more you pay. However, farm subsidies depend only on production levels so the larger your agricultural sector the more subsidies you get. The less well developed your economy the higher your allocation of development grants. The upshot is that the richer countries support the developing countries until their economy improves. Eventually, they should all become net contributors and the overall contribution rate would fall. Every Briton has it within their power to reduce our EU contribution. All they have to do is to stop buying stuff. Food is zero rated so that doesn't count.

 

[srgreene]

Campbells book is an approved biography. therefore there is nothing in it that the Thatcher family did not approve of. You must also realise that her Altzheimer's was getting a grip on her by the time it was written. ... About what you would expect from an authorised biography

I do not know what an "approved biography" is, or even that it has a meaning. "Authorized biography" does have have a meaning. Other than acknowledging permission to quote from Carol Thatcher's biography of her father, Campbell made no mention of any type of "approval" from the Thatcher family. Nor do I believe he had access to her private papers (but I have only the one volume edition of the biography, where the author notes his list of acknowledgements is incomplete and refers the reader to the unabridged edition).

Campbell most certainly did not write Thatcher's "authorized biography": Charles Moore did (or, perhaps, is doing). I think that serves as sufficient commentary on your effort at disparagement by association regarding Campbell's conclusions about Thatcher. Campbell's biography was far from hagiography.

I don't recall as Campbell ever noted that he even met Thatcher (I don't think he did make that claim). As for the late PM's descent into Alzheimer's, biographies, unauthorized ones in particular, require no assent from the subject or the subject's family. Hence, your reference to her unfortunate latter years is utterly irrelevant and, I would say, borders on being a cheap shot that says more about you than about Campbell or Thatcher. But Thatcher's public life was a history of taking, and shrugging off, cheap shots.

 

[DeYaKen]

I do not know what an "approved biography" is, or even that it has a meaning. "Authorized biography" does have have a meaning. Other than acknowledging permission to quote from Carol Thatcher's biography of her father, Campbell made no mention of any type of "approval" from the Thatcher family. Nor do I believe he had access to her private papers (but I have only the one volume edition of the biography, where the author notes his list of acknowledgements is incomplete and refers the reader to the unabridged edition).

Campbell most certainly did not write Thatcher's "authorized biography": Charles Moore did (or, perhaps, is doing). I think that serves as sufficient commentary on your effort at disparagement by association regarding Campbell's conclusions about Thatcher. Campbell's biography was far from hagiography.

I don't recall as Campbell ever noted that he even met Thatcher (I don't think he did make that claim). As for the late PM's descent into Alzheimer's, biographies, unauthorized ones in particular, require no assent from the subject or the subject's family. Hence, your reference to her unfortunate latter years is utterly irrelevant and, I would say, borders on being a cheap shot that says more about you than about Campbell or Thatcher. But Thatcher's public life was a history of taking, and shrugging off, cheap shots.

I understood Cambell's biography to be Authorised. There was certainly no complaints from the Thatcher Family about it. If it was not, I cannot understand why he tried to blame Heath for right to buy when a cursory search tells you that the legislation dates from 1980 one year after Thatcher was elected. The Heath government ended in 1974. If that is the level of accuracy he strove for it explains a lot. In mentioning her Altzheimer's I was being charitable in that if he got the information from her it would explain why it was not accurate. Whatever else she was, she was not the sort of person to deny her actions indeed she was proud of what she did.

As for shrugging things off, that's true. She even shrugged off Milton Freedman's comments when he said that his economic theories could not be interpreted the way her government had interpreted them to justify her policies. Another of her favourite mantras was "there is no alternative".

I realise that there are people, especially in the US who would like to deify Margaret Thatcher and nothing I can say will ever change that. The thing is, you see, she was wrong, there was an alternative, there always is. Just as there was an alternative to her policies there is also an alternative view of the woman herself. She was strong willed and single minded and they can be seen as good traits. However, when they stop you listening to your own experts, they are not so good.

 

[underguy1]

I do not know what an "approved biography" is, or even that it has a meaning. "Authorized biography" does have have a meaning. Other than acknowledging permission to quote from Carol Thatcher's biography of her father, Campbell made no mention of any type of "approval" from the Thatcher family. Nor do I believe he had access to her private papers (but I have only the one volume edition of the biography, where the author notes his list of acknowledgements is incomplete and refers the reader to the unabridged edition).

Campbell most certainly did not write Thatcher's "authorized biography": Charles Moore did (or, perhaps, is doing). I think that serves as sufficient commentary on your effort at disparagement by association regarding Campbell's conclusions about Thatcher. Campbell's biography was far from hagiography.

I don't recall as Campbell ever noted that he even met Thatcher (I don't think he did make that claim). As for the late PM's descent into Alzheimer's, biographies, unauthorized ones in particular, require no assent from the subject or the subject's family. Hence, your reference to her unfortunate latter years is utterly irrelevant and, I would say, borders on being a cheap shot that says more about you than about Campbell or Thatcher. But Thatcher's public life was a history of taking, and shrugging off, cheap shots.

Thatcher was an economic illiterate so she was easy prey for the monetarists and their fables.

Macroeconomicsis nothing whatsoever like household or business budgeting. But the household finance comparison is an easy sell to the gullible.

All the debt/deficit stuff that's been sold to the public in the neoliberal era is bunk designed to make people vote against their self interest and for the interests of big business.

 

[srgreene]

Thatcher was an economic illiterate so she was easy prey for the monetarists and their fables.

Macroeconomics is nothing whatsoever like household or business budgeting. But the household finance comparison is an easy sell to the gullible. ...

So one of the Iron Lady's detractors (DeYaKen) says she spurned the King of Monetarists' (the late Milton Friedman) advice while another says, "she was easy prey for the monetarists and their fables." You guys need to get your story straight!

 

[Beco]

There has been a call from some EU leaders for the UK to be asked to vote again.

As yet it is muted, but the EU has a history of rejecting voters' decisions that were inconvenient and wanting a re-run until the 'right' result is reached.

Why? Just move on... Nothing is going to happen, the US market is always the safe haven as the US goes, so does the world.....just relax

 

[DeYaKen]

So one of the Iron Lady's detractors (DeYaKen) says she spurned the King of Monetarists' (the late Milton Friedman) advice while another says, "she was easy prey for the monetarists and their fables." You guys need to get your story straight!

I never said she spurned Freedman. I said that Freedman disowned her version of monetarism As politicians so often do, she chose bits and pieces of monetarist policy which was why Freedman was upset.

If you want an example of how poorly the lady understood economics take a look at Black Wednesday when her policy lost the British Taxpayer £24 billion in a single day. Her chancellors had advised her to stay out of the ERM but she went ahead anyway. The link below will tell you all about the result.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Wednesday

Campbell mention that in his biography?

 

[underguy1]

The reason that was an outright lie is that Britain does not and never has sent £365million to Brussels. We get a rebate of about £80 million a week which is deducted before anything is paid. the amount sent to the EU is closer to £278million so the claim was an outright lie and everyone using it knew that.

After farm subsidies and regional support grants are returned our net cost is about £8billion per year. This represents less than 1% of the government's pension and social security bill. England is a net contributor, Scotland, with its small population, is a net receiver. That is the way the EU works.

If we say that the EU levy is 1.5% then the first 1.5% of any transaction on which VAT (a bit like your sales tax) is paid, goes to Brussels. The bigger your economy the more you pay. However, farm subsidies depend only on production levels so the larger your agricultural sector the more subsidies you get. The less well developed your economy the higher your allocation of development grants. The upshot is that the richer countries support the developing countries until their economy improves. Eventually, they should all become net contributors and the overall contribution rate would fall. Every Briton has it within their power to reduce our EU contribution. All they have to do is to stop buying stuff. Food is zero rated so that doesn't count.

Dude, please.

 

[srgreene]

"Campbells book is an approved biography. therefore there is nothing in it that the Thatcher family did not approve of. You must also realise that her Altzheimer's was getting a grip on her by the time it was written. ... About what you would expect from an authorised biography"

How juvenile of you. I found your comment to be utterly smarmy, self-serving in the sense of preserving your cherished world view, affecting a pretense to great insight coupled with a certain world weariness. So I thought I would quote a little from Charles Moore's authorized biography of Lady Thatcher, which has been sitting on my bookshelf unread for over a year now. In the preface to the first volume, Moore notes,

"The book ... is described as the 'authorized' biography, because Mrs Thatcher asked me to write it, but our agreement also stipulated that Lady Thatcher was not permitted to ready my manuscript and the book could not appear in her lifetime. This was partly to spare her, in old age, any controversy which might result from publication, but mainly to reassure readers that she had not been able to exert any control over what was said. It was helpful to some of the people I interviewed to know that she would never ready what they told me. I was paid not by Lady Thatcher, but by my publishers, Penguin."

The author also noted that,

"[he] was chosen mainly for two reasons. As an editor, political journalist and commentator who had followed the period closely, I knew the dramatis personae. And although my writing had generally been sympathetic to Mrs Thatcher, I was never
part of her 'gang'."

So, judging by the author's words, you have a totally off-base view of what is fairly typical of authorized biographies (Steve Jobs didn't read his either, although I don't recall that the agreement was formalized to the extent Thatcher's was). However, your view does help maintain your world view with which you seem comfortable, facts be damned.

I suppose readers of this thread can decide for themselves whether to believe you, presumably using a pseudonym on a sex site on the 'Net, or the author of (the real) authorized biography of Margaret Thatcher who, for all her limitations, was one of the great statesmen of the 20th century.

Allow me to say, I enjoy our repartee, even though we clearly disagree on fundamentals.

 

[DeYaKen]

"Campbells book is an approved biography. therefore there is nothing in it that the Thatcher family did not approve of. You must also realise that her Altzheimer's was getting a grip on her by the time it was written. ... About what you would expect from an authorised biography"

How juvenile of you. I found your comment to be utterly smarmy, self-serving in the sense of preserving your cherished world view, affecting a pretense to great insight coupled with a certain world weariness. So I thought I would quote a little from Charles Moore's authorized biography of Lady Thatcher, which has been sitting on my bookshelf unread for over a year now. In the preface to the first volume, Moore notes,

"The book ... is described as the 'authorized' biography, because Mrs Thatcher asked me to write it, but our agreement also stipulated that Lady Thatcher was not permitted to ready my manuscript and the book could not appear in her lifetime. This was partly to spare her, in old age, any controversy which might result from publication, but mainly to reassure readers that she had not been able to exert any control over what was said. It was helpful to some of the people I interviewed to know that she would never ready what they told me. I was paid not by Lady Thatcher, but by my publishers, Penguin."

The author also noted that,

"[he] was chosen mainly for two reasons. As an editor, political journalist and commentator who had followed the period closely, I knew the dramatis personae. And although my writing had generally been sympathetic to Mrs Thatcher, I was never
part of her 'gang'."

So, judging by the author's words, you have a totally off-base view of what is fairly typical of authorized biographies (Steve Jobs didn't read his either, although I don't recall that the agreement was formalized to the extent Thatcher's was). However, your view does help maintain your world view with which you seem comfortable, facts be damned.

I suppose readers of this thread can decide for themselves whether to believe you, presumably using a pseudonym on a sex site on the 'Net, or the author of (the real) authorized biography of Margaret Thatcher who, for all her limitations, was one of the great statesmen of the 20th century.

Allow me to say, I enjoy our repartee, even though we clearly disagree on fundamentals.

So I give you evidence of how catastrophic Saint Margaret's monetary policies were and you choose to ignore it and revert back to an argument which has long since finished. I think that says more about you than it does about me. Obviously having difficulty accepting facts that go against your glossy stage-managed view. They call that cognitive dissonance. Some say that is what caused Tony Blair to take us to war in Iraq. He couldn't accept that the WMDs didn't exist.

I take it that your biographies didn't mention Black Wednesday. Quelle surprise!

 

[Liar]

Leadsom out. Leavers gonna leave.