Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Archae

(46,262 posts)
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 02:13 PM Apr 2013

If Thatcher was so "evil," how'd she get in?

How would someone like this get elected as Prime Minister?

Here in the US, Reagan got in because his opponents were simply weak.

Obama got in and was re-elected because his opponents are far-right nutcases.

67 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
If Thatcher was so "evil," how'd she get in? (Original Post) Archae Apr 2013 OP
Prime Ministers aren't elected. They are chosen by party members with the most seats. JaneyVee Apr 2013 #1
that was too easy JaneyVee warrior1 Apr 2013 #4
The Labour opposition was pathetic, with ridiculous policies. Nye Bevan Apr 2013 #2
this makes it clear that you oppose left wing policies CreekDog Apr 2013 #16
I oppose unilateral nuclear disarmament. Don't you? (nt) Nye Bevan Apr 2013 #22
stop moving the goal posts (but yes, I support nuclear disarmament of England) CreekDog Apr 2013 #24
What am I "running away from"? I'll say it again, unilateral nuclear disarmament was a stupid policy Nye Bevan Apr 2013 #30
you're running away from your criticism of left wing policies CreekDog Apr 2013 #31
OK. I will say for the record that I fully stand by, am not ashamed of, and am not running away from Nye Bevan Apr 2013 #37
What is the value of "left wing policies" that will never be implemented... brooklynite Apr 2013 #54
And, the poor Brits ended up with (ugh!) Tony Blair and 3rd Way/Tory policies. Tierra_y_Libertad Apr 2013 #19
Reagan's opponents weren't just weak, there was a LOT of anti-incumbent sentiment Blue_Tires Apr 2013 #3
Here's some good info about those times... JoeBlowToo Apr 2013 #51
Carter alienated the working base of the Party and refused to help the Party with fund raising and byeya Apr 2013 #52
Greed sells. Reagan did not win "because" of his opponents unblock Apr 2013 #5
No, there was a specific grievance in Reagan's case that went unaddressed by Democrats, Benton D Struckcheon Apr 2013 #9
i agree indexing brackets made sense, but that was hardly a major issue unblock Apr 2013 #46
I got my first job in Aug of 79, Benton D Struckcheon Apr 2013 #53
Reagan won because of the October Surprise. KittyWampus Apr 2013 #21
that was indeed a large factor. imagine if the hostage crisis had been resolved under carter. unblock Apr 2013 #47
I voted for Jimmy Carter Go Vols Apr 2013 #45
likewise, and agreed. unblock Apr 2013 #48
With one or two exceptions, people like her always seems fairly reasonable Aristus Apr 2013 #6
Also Reagan was a throwback marions ghost Apr 2013 #15
"...those unruly kids of the 60's-70's." KansDem Apr 2013 #32
Yeah marions ghost Apr 2013 #67
Political deals with her party and the other parties. Cleita Apr 2013 #7
And Obama didn't get it and re-elected "because" his opponents are far-right nutcases. Rather... GodlessBiker Apr 2013 #8
people are stupid bowens43 Apr 2013 #10
Same way we got Reagan. Bad Economy and FEARmongering CBGLuthier Apr 2013 #11
Some thoughts - I lived through almost all her tenure dmallind Apr 2013 #12
'third way can win while socialism can not'. lol. 'third way' = neoliberalism & the public hates HiPointDem Apr 2013 #14
Sure - that's why we have all those Congresspeople advocating nationalization eh? dmallind Apr 2013 #25
umm -- what party ever advocated for the people controlling the means of production? In HiPointDem Apr 2013 #27
interesting perspective-thanks for the post Johonny Apr 2013 #26
reagan got in because of psyops. so did thatcher. HiPointDem Apr 2013 #13
The elephant in the room. ananda Apr 2013 #17
Like Reagan, she appealed to middle class fears about the poor. Tierra_y_Libertad Apr 2013 #18
It's much more surprising when people who *aren't* ruthless attain power. Marr Apr 2013 #20
1) Prime Ministers aren't elected and 2) Harmful leaders take power all the time CreekDog Apr 2013 #23
People saw what they wanted to see in Reagan Yavin4 Apr 2013 #28
We could say the same thing about Bush Coyotl Apr 2013 #29
How'd Boner become Speaker of the House? sadbear Apr 2013 #33
Ask a question WilliamPitt Apr 2013 #34
Why don't you bring up GWB/Cheney? blogslut Apr 2013 #35
She got the leadership of the Tories dsc Apr 2013 #36
She was "evil" because saying so ad nauseum is good for one's DU cred. cherokeeprogressive Apr 2013 #38
allowing tenants to buy their "council houses". You CLEARLY have no IDEA of the effect: WinkyDink Apr 2013 #59
Wow! Thanks for the sermon! nt. OldDem2012 Apr 2013 #61
Allowing tenents to buy council houses? vanlassie Apr 2013 #63
From my reading of the last few days... BlueCheese Apr 2013 #39
You don't really grasp the U.K.'s parliamentary system, do you? n/t markpkessinger Apr 2013 #40
You don't directly elect prime ministers. That said, even she barely saw it coming at the time. (nt) Posteritatis Apr 2013 #41
What planet have you been on for the past 10,000 years or so TheKentuckian Apr 2013 #42
You have GOT to be kidding, right? n/t Jamastiene Apr 2013 #43
Thanks for asking this question.... LeftInTX Apr 2013 #44
The same way any of these psychopaths get in. backscatter712 Apr 2013 #49
A not insignificant reason was the existence of the Social Democratic Party Denzil_DC Apr 2013 #50
Pretty neat trick, considering it was formed two years after Thatcher was elected... brooklynite Apr 2013 #56
That's bogus. How many elections did the Tories win under Thatcher? Denzil_DC Apr 2013 #57
Still not seeing how this is SDP's fault brooklynite Apr 2013 #62
"There's always been a third party in the UK." Denzil_DC Apr 2013 #64
...and my wife was there as well (at Oxford). brooklynite Apr 2013 #65
I was there. If it tells you nothing, that's not my problem. Denzil_DC Apr 2013 #66
nixon won 2 terms...shit happens spanone Apr 2013 #55
What?? WinkyDink Apr 2013 #58
The 1970s had two oil crises that hit all the advanced economies quite hard. JVS Apr 2013 #60

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
2. The Labour opposition was pathetic, with ridiculous policies.
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 02:17 PM
Apr 2013

They advocated unilateral nuclear disarmament and nationalization of the "commanding heights" of industry, along with punitively higher income tax rates. Michael Foot was a figure of ridicule and Neil Kinnock was slightly more telegenic but bombastic and not much better.

It was not until Tony Blair came along and ditched the left-wing Labour policies that Labour once again became a credible political party and was elected to power in 1997.

CreekDog

(46,192 posts)
16. this makes it clear that you oppose left wing policies
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 03:48 PM
Apr 2013

well, clearer. you made it clear many times before.

CreekDog

(46,192 posts)
24. stop moving the goal posts (but yes, I support nuclear disarmament of England)
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 04:09 PM
Apr 2013

but don't try to run away from your words.

you criticized Labor for their left-wing policies.

because you don't like Left Wing policies.

please stop being ashamed of what you believe, it makes me far less likely to think that you believe it.

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
30. What am I "running away from"? I'll say it again, unilateral nuclear disarmament was a stupid policy
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 04:38 PM
Apr 2013

which played a significant part in Mrs Thatcher defeating the Labour Party.

I'll say it again and I'm not "ashamed of it": unilateral nuclear disarmament was a stupid policy. I'm not ashamed to say this and I'm not "running away" from it.

CreekDog

(46,192 posts)
31. you're running away from your criticism of left wing policies
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 04:44 PM
Apr 2013

you're trying to say all you criticized was unilaterial nuclear disarmament.

but you slipped and made statements that said that Labour kept losing because they kept supporting left wing policies and didn't stop doing so until Tony Blair --making clear your disdain for a whole host of Labour policies not just the nuclear one.

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
37. OK. I will say for the record that I fully stand by, am not ashamed of, and am not running away from
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 05:04 PM
Apr 2013

my criticism of the lunatic policies of the UK Labour party pre Tony Blair's "New Labour" reforms.

BTW I can say with certainty that today's US Democratic Party has much more in common with the 1987 UK Conservatives than with the 1987 UK Labour Party.

brooklynite

(93,873 posts)
54. What is the value of "left wing policies" that will never be implemented...
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 07:53 PM
Apr 2013

...because they're so far out of the mainstream that voters will pick the alternative?

Blue_Tires

(55,445 posts)
3. Reagan's opponents weren't just weak, there was a LOT of anti-incumbent sentiment
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 02:18 PM
Apr 2013

which can be difficult to overcome...

The main reason why the neo-nazi party is doing so well in Greece is because of the "Anyone but the establishment" voter hysteria....

 

JoeBlowToo

(253 posts)
51. Here's some good info about those times...
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 06:58 PM
Apr 2013

When Margaret Thatcher, leader of the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom, won the 1979 general election defeating the incumbent Labour Party led by James Callaghan, Britain had endured several years of severe inflation, which was rarely below 10% and by the time of the election in May 1979 stood at 10.3%.[5] Thatcher implemented monetarism as the weapon in her battle against inflation, and succeeded at reducing it to 4.6% by 1983 — although this was achieved largely by the mass closure of inefficient factories, which resulted in a recession and in unemployment doubling from around 1,500,000 people to more than 3,000,000. This policy was controversial with the public and even some of her own Members of Parliament (MPs) (as well as former Conservative prime ministers Harold Macmillan[6] and Edward Heath),[7] but her success in the Falklands war led to a recovery in her popularity which contributed to the Conservative victory in the 1983 general election. This came at a time of a global recession, and Thatcher's monetarist policies earned her the respect of political leaders worldwide as Britain was a world leader in the fight against the recession and one of the first nations to re-establish economic growth.

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

 

byeya

(2,842 posts)
52. Carter alienated the working base of the Party and refused to help the Party with fund raising and
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 07:13 PM
Apr 2013

the like.
Ted Kennedy and Jesse Jackson, if I remember correctly, ran against the incumbant president in the primaries - (I voted for Jackson in two elections so this must have been one of them) - so Reagan ran against an unpopular president who had been weakened in the primaries - deservedly so, Carter was a poor excuse for a Democrat - and won.

unblock

(51,974 posts)
5. Greed sells. Reagan did not win "because" of his opponents
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 02:20 PM
Apr 2013

One could certainly argue that a stronger incumbent, or at least better circumstances, would have kept Reagan out. But Reagan didn't lose in '76 because ford was strong, either. Reagan had immense appeal because he hit all the right emotional chords. He had an affable smile, he had a charming grandfatherly way, he told a great story. All those things that don't do real people any good but for done reason work in politics.

Plus, and most important, he was offering people money. Across-the-board tax cuts. Every tax payer thought they would get a bonanza.

Why does evil continue to exist at all? Never forget that it's damned appealing, and the lure of its promises can easily make people forget their moral compass.

Benton D Struckcheon

(2,347 posts)
9. No, there was a specific grievance in Reagan's case that went unaddressed by Democrats,
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 02:24 PM
Apr 2013

bracket creep: the process whereby inflation adjustments to your wages bumped you into a higher tax bracket. Forget everything else, the single thing that Reagan did that no one has even thought about touching is that he indexed the tax brackets to inflation.
Had the Democrats addressed this under Carter, Reagan would have lost. It was a signally stupid mistake.

unblock

(51,974 posts)
46. i agree indexing brackets made sense, but that was hardly a major issue
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 06:31 PM
Apr 2013

it's a fairly wonky topic and i doubt all that many votes changed due to that issue.

the hostage and stagflation coverage were far larger issues, as was reagan's tax cuts themselves.
indexing the brackets is something that impacts people more over time, and people don't tend to vote based on longer-term issues when there are bigger, more immediate issues at hand.

Benton D Struckcheon

(2,347 posts)
53. I got my first job in Aug of 79,
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 07:50 PM
Apr 2013

which would be a year and a few months before that election. It was a pretty big issue among working folks. No one was happy that they were winding up in higher brackets just because of a cost of living raise. Those Reagan Democrats got that Reagan in front of their affiliation largely because of this tax issue, as I recall.
The hostage issue was an add-on. The bracket creep issue hit you right in the wallet. People tend to vote their wallet far more than they pay attention to foreign policy. And of course stagflation was the root of the bracket creep issue, but a large part of the resentment felt against inflation had to do with being bumped up and paying far higher taxes just because of inflation. The Democrats were being really obtuse by ignoring it.

unblock

(51,974 posts)
47. that was indeed a large factor. imagine if the hostage crisis had been resolved under carter.
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 06:34 PM
Apr 2013

i also remain suspicious of the failed hostage rescue attempt.
not merely that it failed, but that it failed in a way that alerted the world and apparently prevented a second attempt.

Aristus

(66,096 posts)
6. With one or two exceptions, people like her always seems fairly reasonable
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 02:21 PM
Apr 2013

before they get their hands on power. That's when they go crazy. Reagan seemed reasonable before being elected Governor of California. His particular brand of apple-cheeked crazy was confined mostly to California until he was elected President.

Then the nation went mad.

I don't know enough about Thatcher's pre-PM tenure to suggest this may be the case, but it wouldn't surprise me.

Seemingly inoffensive phrases like "self-reliance" and "compassionate conservatism" are how these nutbags get their foot in the door.

marions ghost

(19,841 posts)
15. Also Reagan was a throwback
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 03:35 PM
Apr 2013

to the good old post-WW2 days. It was the WW2 generation's payback to those unruly kids of the 60's-70's.

Everything was back "under control."

marions ghost

(19,841 posts)
67. Yeah
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 01:41 PM
Apr 2013

"The Dirty Fucking Hippies were Right" --- great vid

"Wall Street needed to be reigned in long ago"... ain't that the truth?

Cleita

(75,480 posts)
7. Political deals with her party and the other parties.
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 02:23 PM
Apr 2013

She's not elected but appointed by her party. Also, she was a politician and talked a good game, just like her buddy Reagan. It was her actions that finally got her booted out.

GodlessBiker

(6,314 posts)
8. And Obama didn't get it and re-elected "because" his opponents are far-right nutcases. Rather...
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 02:24 PM
Apr 2013

Obama was able to lay out a series of policies that were and are popular with the electorate, while Romney was completely out of touch with the electorate (and certainly was not out on the far right side of his party, although he tried to mimic, at times, those who were) and could not articulate any reason to elect him.

dmallind

(10,437 posts)
12. Some thoughts - I lived through almost all her tenure
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 03:05 PM
Apr 2013

Firstly, some answerers are oversimplifying. While the party picks their leader and the leader becomes PM when their party has a majority, this doesn't mean that she was elected in secret or unknown to the electorate. She was elected - three times - as the known leader of the Conservative party with 100% certainty that she would be PM if the party won enough seats.

Her opposition does bear some blame true. UK politics is not quite as image-drenched as US analogs, but Foot - a wild-haired dishevelled slob spouting 30s-era socialism - was an easy opponent to ridicule, and with some merit. Clearly the idea that all was well with the competitiveness and quality of British Leyland and the cost-effectiveness of paying more in labor alone to extract coal than it was worth, and that the country wanted more of the same, was a poor gameplan. Unemployment was above 11% both times she was REelected too and still the electorate had less faith in Labour responses than hers. Kinnock was an ineffectual type who couldn't shake the old style socialism still rampant in Labour at the time. People on DU tend to be fond of socialism, but 1970s UK is as close to it as I ever want to come. I've actually lived in a broadly nationalized heavily socialized society. In reality it is a retardant economic system - a drag on progress and innovation and, often, common sense.

Geography plays a role though. While gerrymandering per se is far less of an issue in th UK than here, regional political differences are if anything MORE pronounced. TX is flirting with purpleness, SC may be on the horizon, but Jeffrey Dahmer would win a Labour seat in much of the industrial Northeast of England running against Jesus as a Tory. Likewise, many areas in the well to do Home Counties will never go Labour. The South, obviously as a generalization with exceptions, is a Tory stronghold, and that's where most of the people are.

Lets be honest too, racism helped. Thatcher wasn't openly racist in a Duke or even Thurmond mold, but her much tougher, by UK standards, approach to immigration and integration appealed more to those who were. There has been a sizeable racist contingent in UK politics for decades, from the National Front to the BNP to the EDL or whatever they are calling themselves now. Integration is often less advanced even than in the US, with heavily Asian, and to a much lesser extent Afro-Carribean areas forming almost entirely differentiated enclaves. For reasons both good but mostly racist, the resentment of the white majority was palpable throughout her tenure. "Paki-Bashing" was an open and even competitive "sport" in my youth amongst the racist set, and this attitude was nowhere near as frowned upon as it is today. What causes careers to end here and now made them there and then, with comedians like Manning and his more gentle versions like Davidson given prime time TV slots to tell racist jokes to most of the country. Which party do you think those influenced by that type of slime supported? The NF had the extremists, but the much more populous "simple" racists went Tory.

The era only ended, as stated above, when Labour finally shook off the Tony Benn style of socialism and formed a credible opposition. Blair surely is a warmongering toady, but he did at least make it possible to change the rate and some of the direction of Thatcherism in the UK. Just as in the US, the "Third Way" can win, while socialism cannot. Labour, to their credit, learned that way too late in Thatcher's career to stop her.



 

HiPointDem

(20,729 posts)
14. 'third way can win while socialism can not'. lol. 'third way' = neoliberalism & the public hates
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 03:30 PM
Apr 2013

it once they understand it.

'socialism' = social security & a majority in both parties are for it.

dmallind

(10,437 posts)
25. Sure - that's why we have all those Congresspeople advocating nationalization eh?
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 04:16 PM
Apr 2013

Socialism is not social security, not even close, no matter what Rush says. Socialism is:

socialism
Definition
so·cial·ism[ sṓshə lìzəm ]NOUN
1. political system of communal ownership: a political theory or system in which the means of production and distribution are controlled by the people and operated according to equity and fairness rather than market principles
2. movement based on socialism: a political movement based on principles of socialism, typically advocating an end to private property and to the exploitation of workers
3. stage between capitalism and communism: in Marxist theory, the stage after the proletarian revolution when a society is changing from capitalism to communism, marked by pay distributed according to work done rather than need

This will not win an election in the US, or the UK, any time soon. Communal control of the means of production is a pipedream unworkable in anything but a very small, very tightly knit group.

 

HiPointDem

(20,729 posts)
27. umm -- what party ever advocated for the people controlling the means of production? In
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 04:28 PM
Apr 2013

modern politics, 'socialism' = the welfare state, and that's what reagan and thatcher tore down.

Johonny

(20,684 posts)
26. interesting perspective-thanks for the post
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 04:18 PM
Apr 2013

I agree, I doubt 70s era socialized UK would be a winning sell in the US. On the other hand it is hard for a "liberal" party to move much further right in the US and be even considered liberal by most voters standards of liberal. Can liberalism win elections? The Republicans won in 2010 by claiming to protect medicare. Obama won in 2008 claiming to establish a more socialize medical system and again in 2012 as people were more certain he would continue social security and medicare. Socialism is not as unpopular as people suggest.

ananda

(28,783 posts)
17. The elephant in the room.
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 03:51 PM
Apr 2013

We have to address the racism and xenophobia underlying any power the right gets.

 

Tierra_y_Libertad

(50,414 posts)
18. Like Reagan, she appealed to middle class fears about the poor.
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 03:51 PM
Apr 2013

And, of course, he waved the flag a lot and played "tough".

Maggie did the same but substituted the Union Jack and bitched about the unions.

 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
20. It's much more surprising when people who *aren't* ruthless attain power.
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 03:57 PM
Apr 2013

'Self-Absorbed Asshole Takes the Reigns' is never a shocking headline.

CreekDog

(46,192 posts)
23. 1) Prime Ministers aren't elected and 2) Harmful leaders take power all the time
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 04:06 PM
Apr 2013

why don't you know this?

you posted a conclusion that you want us to believe.

when you clearly don't even understand the topic you are posting on.

which is embarrassing.

and no, it's not embarrassing to not know, it's embarrassing to make such a broad statement about something you don't know and expect us to treat your opinion as credible.

Yavin4

(35,357 posts)
28. People saw what they wanted to see in Reagan
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 04:32 PM
Apr 2013

After the turbulent 60s, the bitter end of the Vietnam war, Watergate, and a weak Jimmy Carter presidency, Americans wanted to be re-assured by Uncle Ronnie. The only group of people to see through Ronnie's bullshit were African Americans.

sadbear

(4,340 posts)
33. How'd Boner become Speaker of the House?
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 04:46 PM
Apr 2013

I didn't vote for him. And neither did anyone from the whole state of Texas.

That fucking Boner is some kind of dictator or something.

dsc

(52,130 posts)
36. She got the leadership of the Tories
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 04:58 PM
Apr 2013

in a two step process. She beat the then leader (Heath) but not be enough to win outright, he resigned and she then beat his chosen successor (Whitelaw). This was in 74 after the Conservatives lost. Then the economy tanked and in 79 the Conservatives won.

 

cherokeeprogressive

(24,853 posts)
38. She was "evil" because saying so ad nauseum is good for one's DU cred.
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 05:51 PM
Apr 2013

She was a member of Parliament for 11 years, so one would think her evil nature would have been evident as early as 1959. As a member of Parliament she advocated for, among other things:

...requiring local authorities to hold their council meetings in public.
...Israel trading land for peace.
...allowing tenants to buy their "council houses".
...the decriminalization of male homosexuality.
...legalized abortion.
...animal rights in the form of a prohibition of "hare coursing".

Speaking ill of the dead serves no purpose other than to soothe (in some strange way) seething hatred for another human being and to let others know you're cool because you're just like them.

vanlassie

(5,637 posts)
63. Allowing tenents to buy council houses?
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 11:31 PM
Apr 2013

So today those former welfare mothers can sell for a tidy profit while working couples wanting a home so as to start a family are up shit creek. Council houses were built with taxpayer money- meaning they should have belonged to the people? Who profited? My kid would love to be able to afford one of those council houses. And she and hubby have excellent jobs.

BlueCheese

(2,522 posts)
39. From my reading of the last few days...
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 05:55 PM
Apr 2013

... her first election was mostly a rejection of Labour after the famous "winter of discontent" in 1978-1979. See

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7598366.stm

and

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/thatcherism_01.shtml

All told, she was elected prime minister three times. The second time probably had a lot to do with the Falklands War and Labour's continued disorganization, combined with some improvement in the economy. As for the third-- maybe things were going well? Not sure.

TheKentuckian

(24,949 posts)
42. What planet have you been on for the past 10,000 years or so
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 06:15 PM
Apr 2013

Evil fuckers are usually who is in charge.

LeftInTX

(24,560 posts)
44. Thanks for asking this question....
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 06:26 PM
Apr 2013

I always thought the PM was elected like our president.

I guess it makes the outrage more politically correct.

NO ONE voted for Cheney. (except for Cheney himself, Bill Krystol et al)

I think there might be an interesting reaction in the US when he goes.

backscatter712

(26,355 posts)
49. The same way any of these psychopaths get in.
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 06:38 PM
Apr 2013

With a lie and a smile.

The same way Reagan got in.

The same way George HW Bush got in.

The same way Dubya and Cheney got in.

The same way Nixon got in.

And it's the same way that Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, and a whole bunch of other lying sociopaths hope to get in.

By looking good on TV, coming up with some smooth bullshit, suckering enough low-information voters into voting for them, using some dirty tricks if they can get away with it, then as soon as they're elected and sworn in, they reveal their real agendas.

Denzil_DC

(7,188 posts)
50. A not insignificant reason was the existence of the Social Democratic Party
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 06:49 PM
Apr 2013

which later merged with the Liberal Party to form the Liberal Democrats. It was basically a rightwing schism from the Labour Party, and split the anti-Conservative vote in key constituencies.

Also, it's a quirk of the UK electoral system. Thatcher and the Tories never won the popular vote, and their main support was in the south of England. They were practically annihilated in Scotland and didn't do very well in other regions. But most of the population lives in the south of England, where Thatcher did her best to make sure her more punitive policies policies didn't bite as hard.

Much of the media (not least the Murdoch press) were also in the tank for Thatcher from the Falklands onwards till everybody got sick of her, including her own party.

brooklynite

(93,873 posts)
56. Pretty neat trick, considering it was formed two years after Thatcher was elected...
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 08:00 PM
Apr 2013
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democratic_Party_(UK)

And no point blaming the "UK electoral system", since the same system elected Labour in the previous election.

I'd say, Labour brought the loss on itself...

Denzil_DC

(7,188 posts)
57. That's bogus. How many elections did the Tories win under Thatcher?
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 10:21 PM
Apr 2013

The Falklands was an important factor in Thatcher's re-election, but the splitting of the anti-Tory parties was more significant in elections following her first win. Without David Owen and his ilk, the 1980s would have very likely panned out differently. I was on the ground over there campaigning for Labour and saw it happen.

brooklynite

(93,873 posts)
62. Still not seeing how this is SDP's fault
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 11:22 PM
Apr 2013

There's always been a third party in the UK. In the incredibly unlikely event that the Liberal Party (with or without the SDP) didn't exist, there's no assurance that all those votes would have gone to Labour.

Denzil_DC

(7,188 posts)
64. "There's always been a third party in the UK."
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 08:13 AM
Apr 2013

The Liberal Party was a very minor force by that period, still reeling after the Jeremy Thorpe scandal.

But of course, don't take my word for it. I was just there and actively involved at the time. I'm sure you know better.

brooklynite

(93,873 posts)
65. ...and my wife was there as well (at Oxford).
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 08:26 AM
Apr 2013

If you'd like to show me some academic evidence that in a clean 2-party race, Labour would have won, knock yourself out. "I was there" tells me nothing.

You started out with "it's SDP's fault", then added "and the election process", then added "and the Falklands War". Considering Labour managed to lose the Election on its own in '79 (or do you contest that as well?), do you ascribe any value at all to the notion the voters might not have liked them for some reason?

Denzil_DC

(7,188 posts)
66. I was there. If it tells you nothing, that's not my problem.
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 08:41 AM
Apr 2013

The OP asked a question, which I responded to, along with many others, offering factors that contributed to the situation.

The SDP was a significant factor in the elections after 1979, beyond what the number of seats it actually won would suggest. Before and during 1979, Labour was seriously fractured and dysfunctional, partly because of the internal divisions that led to the forming of the SDP. The ultimate effects of a competitive third party were evident in the last election, which worked out so well.

I spoke to people on the doorsteps and the streets in the 1980s. I attended local and national party conferences and was a constituency delegate. I spoke to activists from other parts of the country.

The voters had plenty of reasons to dislike all the parties after th mess of the 1970s. Most of the media clambered readily onto Maggie's gravy train, presenting her as a savior, then a failed one, then a war heroine, then a savior again, till she eventually hit the endstops. I believe there's another thread here today that's discussing the Murdoch press's role.

This long after events, I'm not at all bothered whether you agree with what I experienced because your wife happened to be at Oxford.

JVS

(61,935 posts)
60. The 1970s had two oil crises that hit all the advanced economies quite hard.
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 10:55 PM
Apr 2013

This economic shock had political consequences.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»If Thatcher was so "evil,...