Riots in France

The happy difference between the UK today and the relatively sclerotic conditions on the continent are mostly the result of the fact that the British did have Maggie Thatcher when they needed her.

Fabulous old bird!

Personally, I didn't really like Maggie and her crew of toffs, but I had to admire her in the end. She had bigger balls than the lot that followed her in number ten.

Well, Lash, I would never call George such

I suppose, every Briton still likes Maggie because of the "Poll Tax".
Besides that she opened the door for a now nearly 16 years of continuously Labour-governed United Kingdom!

Because they did so well under her leadership.

She shaped the world.

Tell this the hundredthousands who lost their jobs due to her policy.
And the families, who suddenly lost everything.

Then,....why have they held power...?

Most of what she did was ill thought out.

But she DID break the vice-like grip of the unions, and that was strangling the country. It was very unpleasant at the time, and many hardships ensued, with massive unemployment and rampant inflation.

But in the end, it has proven to be the best thing that could have happened to our economy/growth/stability/employment situation, IMO.

And 16 years of Labour government.......do you know who Tony Blair uses as a role model?

Labour nowadays, is about as far right as Maggie Thatcher's tories.

Ehem, the conservatives lost power shortly after Maggie resigned in 1990 and Labour rules now.

Some ... in Blairs government. Agreed. (And it seems, Lash even believed Blair was the leader of a conservative party.)

LOL!! Looks pretty conservative from here!! LOL!!

But, you are correct. I was incorrect about Maggie's affiliation.

Who does Blair pattern himself after? Ellpus, made me curious.

You thought she was a Socialist or Blair a Conservative?





Both quotes from Wikipedia

I considered them very similar. Blair seems so conservative to me, I allowed him to morph into a labourish conservative.

Blair doesn't strike you as conservativish, as compared to international liberals and conservatives?

Most international liberals (at least nearly all in Europe) are rightish up to extreme right.

No, Blair isn't a conservative - otherwise I wouldn't support him as the leader of a party which has as Number 4 of it's Party Constitution:

Anyone, I imagine, could agree with that sentiment. It's exactly how you enforce your interpretation of it that may divide people in groups.

BTW-- They could use a little of that "power, wealth and opportunity" in "the hands of the many" about now in France, eh??? Doesn't seem to be working.

Back on the continent:
Villepin said today in his monthly press conference additionally that he wouldn't resign despite the bad luck he had had with the CPE.

Correct! I hope that the left will displace the conservatives in government and as president soon.

Lash, we are clearly dealing with an unreconstructed Westphalian Social Democrat (=socialist with liberal pretenses) in our friend, Walter.

He is correct that everywhere but the United States the term 'Liberal' refers (properly in an historical context) to free market capitalist views.

With respect to the article from the UK Labor party constitution which Walter quoted - I believe that is just a collection of words retained to pacify the old-line unionist-socialists who once ruled the UK Labor party and under PMs from Atlee to Wilson nearly ruined the British economy. Blair has, as Ellpus noted, governed as a moderate conservative. Certainly he has never attempted to reverse any of the needed and very beneficial reforms instituted by Thatcher.

Unions exist to protect the rights of the already employed and to extract as much wealth as possible from the enterprises they infect for the benefit of their members. They generally have no interest in the welfare of the unemployed, preferring to make the state handle that problem through taxes on owners. Indeed in France the Unions are the principal proponents of laws that inhibit the creation of new investment and new jobs for the unemployed, and which prevent the application of modern methods for raising productivity. The result of this is less wealth for everyone, but the illusion of indispensability for the Union leaders themselves.