You're resting a great deal of your argument on a 10% tax rise done, for political, not fiscal, reasons, in the last month of a dying government.
It's a ridiculous argument.
It was also accompanied by an almost 10% rise in the level of spending as a percentage of GDP over the course of Brown's premiership, again under no definition of the word is that a Thatcherite policy
You're really desperate, aren't you? So go on: what is your definition of 'Thatcherite' ?
And eating babies is not an acceptable answer.
Mrs Thatcher cut the top tax rate from over 90% when she took office to 40% when she left, spending as a percentage of gdp from well over 40% when she took office to around 35% when she left and privatised multiple industries, from gas, to telecoms to airways. Brown increased the top tax rate over the course of his administration, increased spending as a percentage of gdp over the course of his administration and privatised no major industries while nationalising the East Coast railway line
Brown didn't have time to do anything due to the financial crash. They did try post office privatisation in 2009, but backed down to their rebels:
The process of privatisation of an NHS hospital started under him. That's a fairly big one for you.
Implemented before he left office. Allowing one hospital to be run by a private company is in no way privatisation, especially as the money still comes from government. Brown also nationalised the East Coast railway line in 2009
BTW, if you snip someone's comments, it's good manners to add a (snip) so you don't misrepresent another's views, as you have (hopefully inadvertently) above.
The tax rise was done a month before he left office. Which was thirteen years after he became chancellor, and nearly three years after he became PM. I'm sure if raising the tax was due to his true beliefs, and not political shenanigans, he would have done it in 1997 or 2007.
But he did not. Because he knew it was the wrong thing to do.
And your point about the hospital is ludicrous given what Labour and lefties themselves have been saying about it. You must be the only one who actually believes that ...
Due to the length of this discussion inevitably previous comments have to be cut to allow space to post. You have to compare what someone was left with to what they left themselves, Brown left a higher top tax rate and higher spending as PM to what he was left by Major and Blair, that was in no way a Thatcherite legacy.
I am not a leftie, but the definition of a privatised industry is one run by a private company and funded by private consumers and finance, not the state
If you do snip, try to make sure what's left doesn't misrepresent the conversation ...
The idea that something done in the dying month of an administration, when the government knew it was going to be kicked out, is in any way symbolic of their mindset and ideology is faintly ridiculous. In fact, it's pathetic.
You have to judge his premiership by what he left, Brown left a legacy of higher taxes and higher spending, in no way was he a Thatcherite
You're resting a great deal of your argument on a 10% tax rise done, for political, not fiscal, reasons, in the last month of a dying government.
It's a ridiculous argument.
It was also accompanied by an almost 10% rise in the level of spending as a percentage of GDP over the course of Brown's premiership, again under no definition of the word is that a Thatcherite policy
You're really desperate, aren't you? So go on: what is your definition of 'Thatcherite' ?
And eating babies is not an acceptable answer.
Mrs Thatcher cut the top tax rate from over 90% when she took office to 40% when she left, spending as a percentage of gdp from well over 40% when she took office to around 35% when she left and privatised multiple industries, from gas, to telecoms to airways. Brown increased the top tax rate over the course of his administration, increased spending as a percentage of gdp over the course of his administration and privatised no major industries while nationalising the East Coast railway line
Brown didn't have time to do anything due to the financial crash. They did try post office privatisation in 2009, but backed down to their rebels:
Cameron did privatise the post office, Brown chickened out, so again it was left to the Coalition to push through a privatisation Brown refused to undertake.
Whether the previous franchise 'failed' is a matter of debate, even if it did he could have replaced it with another private company not nationalised it
Brown's 'Sustainable Investment Rule' in the end meant bugger all when he left Britain with one of the biggest deficits in its history when he was finally voted out
The process of privatisation of an NHS hospital started under him. That's a fairly big one for you.
Implemented before he left office. Allowing one hospital to be run by a private company is in no way privatisation, especially as the money still comes from government. Brown also nationalised the East Coast railway line in 2009
BTW, if you snip someone's comments, it's good manners to add a (snip) so you don't misrepresent another's views, as you have (hopefully inadvertently) above.
The tax rise was done a month before he left office. Which was thirteen years after he became chancellor, and nearly three years after he became PM. I'm sure if raising the tax was due to his true beliefs, and not political shenanigans, he would have done it in 1997 or 2007.
But he did not. Because he knew it was the wrong thing to do.
And your point about the hospital is ludicrous given what Labour and lefties themselves have been saying about it. You must be the only one who actually believes that ...
Due to the length of this discussion inevitably previous comments have to be cut to allow space to post. You have to compare what someone was left with to what they left themselves, Brown left a higher top tax rate and higher spending as PM to what he was left by Major and Blair, that was in no way a Thatcherite legacy.
I am not a leftie, but the definition of a privatised industry is one run by a private company and funded by private consumers and finance, not the state
If you do snip, try to make sure what's left doesn't misrepresent the conversation ...
The idea that something done in the dying month of an administration, when the government knew it was going to be kicked out, is in any way symbolic of their mindset and ideology is faintly ridiculous. In fact, it's pathetic.
You have to judge his premiership by what he left, Brown left a legacy of higher taxes and higher spending, in no way was he a Thatcherite
Again, I suggest you read up on Brown's Gordon Brown's 'Sustainable Investment Rule', and tell me how that helps your argument. The fact he was too hopeless to stick to his own rule is another matter ...
You're resting a great deal of your argument on a 10% tax rise done, for political, not fiscal, reasons, in the last month of a dying government.
It's a ridiculous argument.
It was also accompanied by an almost 10% rise in the level of spending as a percentage of GDP over the course of Brown's premiership, again under no definition of the word is that a Thatcherite policy
You're really desperate, aren't you? So go on: what is your definition of 'Thatcherite' ?
And eating babies is not an acceptable answer.
Mrs Thatcher cut the top tax rate from over 90% when she took office to 40% when she left, spending as a percentage of gdp from well over 40% when she took office to around 35% when she left and privatised multiple industries, from gas, to telecoms to airways. Brown increased the top tax rate over the course of his administration, increased spending as a percentage of gdp over the course of his administration and privatised no major industries while nationalising the East Coast railway line
Brown didn't have time to do anything due to the financial crash. They did try post office privatisation in 2009, but backed down to their rebels:
Cameron did privatise the post office, Brown chickened out, so again it was left to the Coalition to push through a privatisation Brown refused to undertake.
Whether the previous franchise 'failed' is a matter of debate, even if it did he could have replaced it with another private company not nationalised it
Brown's 'Sustainable Investment Rule' in the end meant bugger all when he left Britain with one of the biggest deficits in its history when he was finally voted out
So you're admitting, as he 'chickened out', that Brown wanted to privatise it. Good. That's progress.
And the problem with letting another private company run EC was that none had the bandwidth or capability (in practice or legally) to immediately do so. And an immediate solution was required.
And you're also admitting that Brown's instincts were a distinctly Thatcherite balancing of the books, even if he was too cack-handed to achieve it. Good. Further progress.
The process of privatisation of an NHS hospital started under him. That's a fairly big one for you.
Implemented before he left office. Allowing one hospital to be run by a private company is in no way privatisation, especially as the money still comes from government. Brown also nationalised the East Coast railway line in 2009
BTW, if you snip someone's comments, it's good manners to add a (snip) so you don't misrepresent another's views, as you have (hopefully inadvertently) above.
The tax rise was done a month before he left office. Which was thirteen years after he became chancellor, and nearly three years after he became PM. I'm sure if raising the tax was due to his true beliefs, and not political shenanigans, he would have done it in 1997 or 2007.
But he did not. Because he knew it was the wrong thing to do.
And your point about the hospital is ludicrous given what Labour and lefties themselves have been saying about it. You must be the only one who actually believes that ...
Due to the length of this discussion inevitably previous comments have to be cut to allow space to post. You have to compare what someone was left with to what they left themselves, Brown left a higher top tax rate and higher spending as PM to what he was left by Major and Blair, that was in no way a Thatcherite legacy.
I am not a leftie, but the definition of a privatised industry is one run by a private company and funded by private consumers and finance, not the state
If you do snip, try to make sure what's left doesn't misrepresent the conversation ...
The idea that something done in the dying month of an administration, when the government knew it was going to be kicked out, is in any way symbolic of their mindset and ideology is faintly ridiculous. In fact, it's pathetic.
You have to judge his premiership by what he left, Brown left a legacy of higher taxes and higher spending, in no way was he a Thatcherite
Again, I suggest you read up on Brown's Gordon Brown's 'Sustainable Investment Rule', and tell me how that helps your argument. The fact he was too hopeless to stick to his own rule is another matter ...
Well you have encapsulated my argument in one sentence, he could not even stick to his own rules on sustainable spending let alone follow Thatcherite principles!
You're resting a great deal of your argument on a 10% tax rise done, for political, not fiscal, reasons, in the last month of a dying government.
It's a ridiculous argument.
It was also accompanied by an almost 10% rise in the level of spending as a percentage of GDP over the course of Brown's premiership, again under no definition of the word is that a Thatcherite policy
You're really desperate, aren't you? So go on: what is your definition of 'Thatcherite' ?
And eating babies is not an acceptable answer.
Mrs Thatcher cut the top tax rate from over 90% when she took office to 40% when she left, spending as a percentage of gdp from well over 40% when she took office to around 35% when she left and privatised multiple industries, from gas, to telecoms to airways
Brown didn't have time to do anything due to the financial crash. They did try post office privatisation in 2009, but backed down to their rebels:
As for the East Coast, that was only because the previous franchise failed.
Cameron did privatise the post office, Brown chickened out, so again it was left to the Coalition to push through a privatisation Brown refused to undertake.
Whether the previous franchise 'failed' is a matter of debate, even if it did he could have replaced it with another private company not nationalised it
Brown's 'Sustainable Investment Rule' in the end meant bugger all when he left Britain with one of the biggest deficits in its history when he was finally voted out
So you're admitting, as he 'chickened out', that Brown wanted to privatise it. Good. That's progress.
And you're also admitting that Brown's instincts were a distinctly Thatcherite balancing of the books, even if he was too cack-handed to achieve it. Good. Further progress.
In actual fact he did not want to fully privatise the Royal Mail anyway, he was only willing to allow a percentage of the postal service to be owned by the private sector with the government still maintaining a stake and he chickened out of even that. Osborne has just announced the government's entire stake in Royal Mail is to be sold
I am sure the likes of Richard Branson would have jumped at the chance to run the EC line and would have been capable of doing so
Brown's instincts were nothing of the kind, he pretended to be a fiscal conservative under Blair to win votes, once he became PM and ran the show his true colours came out and he left a huge deficit and a large increase in spending
Again, I suggest you read up on Brown's Gordon Brown's 'Sustainable Investment Rule', and tell me how that helps your argument. The fact he was too hopeless to stick to his own rule is another matter ...
Well you have encapsulated my argument in one sentence, he could not even stick to his own rules on sustainable spending let alone follow Thatcherite principles!
Urrrm, you have rather proved mine, by stating that his rules were Thatcherite. The fact he was too incompetent to follow them is entirely a different matter.
Again, I suggest you read up on Brown's Gordon Brown's 'Sustainable Investment Rule', and tell me how that helps your argument. The fact he was too hopeless to stick to his own rule is another matter ...
Well you have encapsulated my argument in one sentence, he could not even stick to his own rules on sustainable spending let alone follow Thatcherite principles!
Urrrm, you have rather proved mine, by stating that his rules were Thatcherite. The fact he was too incompetent to follow them is entirely a different matter.
Game, set and match to me.
Obviously they were not as he even broke his 'supposed rules' leaving massive debt, massive spending and a massive deficit, a total breach of Thatcherite rules. So game, set and match actually to me
In actual fact he did not want to fully privatise the Royal Mail anyway, he was only willing to allow a percentage of the postal service to be owned by the private sector with the government still maintaining a stake and he chickened out of even that. Osborne has just announced the government's entire stake in Royal Mail is to be sold
I am sure the likes of Richard Branson would have jumped at the chance to run the EC line and would have been capable of doing so
Brown's instincts were nothing of the kind, he pretended to be a fiscal conservative under Blair to win votes, once he became PM and ran the show his true colours came out and he left a huge deficit and a large increase in spending
So you're saying because he did not want to 'fully' privatise the service, it doesn't count?
Wow.
As for Branson: firstly, some services are branded 'Virgin' rather than being owned by them. In fact, that's the case for the current EC contract, where Virgin own only 10% ad Stagecoach 90%. Such joint ventures are not undertaken overnight.
If Virgin had accepted the EC contract - if they wanted it in totality - then all the other franchisers and would-be franchisers would rightly have complained. In fact, the temporary nationalisation of EC (and they admitted it would be temporary) allowed good Thactcherite ideas such as competition to win through.
Not only are you wrong, you are apparently clueless.
Again, I suggest you read up on Brown's Gordon Brown's 'Sustainable Investment Rule', and tell me how that helps your argument. The fact he was too hopeless to stick to his own rule is another matter ...
Well you have encapsulated my argument in one sentence, he could not even stick to his own rules on sustainable spending let alone follow Thatcherite principles!
Urrrm, you have rather proved mine, by stating that his rules were Thatcherite. The fact he was too incompetent to follow them is entirely a different matter.
Game, set and match to me.
Obviously they were not as he even broke his 'supposed rules' leaving massive debt, massive spending and a massive deficit, a total breach of Thatcherite rules. So game, set and match actually to me
So you're admitting he set Thatcherite rules, then broke them because of incompetence?
It's rare that I say this on here, but you are being an utter twunt on this.
In actual fact he did not want to fully privatise the Royal Mail anyway, he was only willing to allow a percentage of the postal service to be owned by the private sector with the government still maintaining a stake and he chickened out of even that. Osborne has just announced the government's entire stake in Royal Mail is to be sold
I am sure the likes of Richard Branson would have jumped at the chance to run the EC line and would have been capable of doing so
Brown's instincts were nothing of the kind, he pretended to be a fiscal conservative under Blair to win votes, once he became PM and ran the show his true colours came out and he left a huge deficit and a large increase in spending
So you're saying because he did not want to 'fully' privatise the service, it doesn't count?
Wow.
As for Branson: firstly, some services are branded 'Virgin' rather than being owned by them. In fact, that's the case for the current EC contract, where Virgin own only 10% ad Stagecoach 90%. Such joint ventures are not undertaken overnight.
If Virgin had accepted the EC contract - if they wanted it in totality - then all the other franchisers and would-be franchisers would rightly have complained. In fact, the temporary nationalisation of EC (and they admitted it would be temporary) allowed good Thactcherite ideas such as competition to win through.
Not only are you wrong, you are apparently clueless.
Of course it does not count as a fully privatised company is fully in the private sector, as Osborne is now ensuring Royal Mail is a fully private sector company. However, as I said, Brown did not even push through even a partial private sector stake in the company anyway
Well the franchise could have been opened up to competition and different bids, Brown did not even consider that but nationalised it, at the time a move opposed by Cameron and Osborne. The East Coast rail line was only eventually opened to competition in 2015 when Virgin/Stagecoach was given the franchise for the line by the Coalition after a tendering process
Again, I suggest you read up on Brown's Gordon Brown's 'Sustainable Investment Rule', and tell me how that helps your argument. The fact he was too hopeless to stick to his own rule is another matter ...
Well you have encapsulated my argument in one sentence, he could not even stick to his own rules on sustainable spending let alone follow Thatcherite principles!
Urrrm, you have rather proved mine, by stating that his rules were Thatcherite. The fact he was too incompetent to follow them is entirely a different matter.
Game, set and match to me.
Obviously they were not as he even broke his 'supposed rules' leaving massive debt, massive spending and a massive deficit, a total breach of Thatcherite rules. So game, set and match actually to me
So you're admitting he set Thatcherite rules, then broke them because of incompetence?
It's rare that I say this on here, but you are being an utter twunt on this.
Well you can say you are going to do anything, that is irrelevant, you can only be judged on your actions and Brown's actions as premier were anything but Thatcherite
Of course it does not count as a fully privatised company is fully in the private sector, as Osborne is now ensuring Royal Mail is a fully private sector company. However, as I said, Brown did not even push through even a partial private sector stake in the company anyway
Well the franchise could have been opened up to competition and different bids, Brown did not even consider that but nationalised it, at the time a move opposed by Cameron and Osborne. The East Coast rail line was only eventually opened to competition in 2015 when Virgin/Stagecoach was given the franchise for the line by the Coalition after a tendering process
So wrong on both counts
But, as recent events have shown, any privatisation is evil. I suppose you'll say that Brown would not have privatised the whole of the Royal Mail if he thought he could get it past his backbenchers?
The mere act of privatisation is, in the eyes of many on the left, utterly Thatcherite. And that is exactly what Brown was doing. Look at how the left hysterically (and nastily) reacted to Hinchinbrooke.
'Opening up' the franchises would have taken time they did not have because, as you admit, there needed to be a tendering process. And at least you've now realised that it was not really Virgin's bid: they are very much the smaller partner, used for name only. This takes time they did not have.
Look, when you cannot even get the basic facts right, as you have shown time and time again on this thread, just admit it instead of digging yourself deeper.
Again, I suggest you read up on Brown's Gordon Brown's 'Sustainable Investment Rule', and tell me how that helps your argument. The fact he was too hopeless to stick to his own rule is another matter ...
Well you have encapsulated my argument in one sentence, he could not even stick to his own rules on sustainable spending let alone follow Thatcherite principles!
Urrrm, you have rather proved mine, by stating that his rules were Thatcherite. The fact he was too incompetent to follow them is entirely a different matter.
Game, set and match to me.
Obviously they were not as he even broke his 'supposed rules' leaving massive debt, massive spending and a massive deficit, a total breach of Thatcherite rules. So game, set and match actually to me
So you're admitting he set Thatcherite rules, then broke them because of incompetence?
It's rare that I say this on here, but you are being an utter twunt on this.
Well you can say you are going to do anything, that is irrelevant, you can only be judged on your actions and Brown's actions as premier were anything but Thatcherite
So the 'Sustainable Investment Rule' was anything but Thatcherite? The desired part-privatisation of the Post Office was likewise?
Of course it does not count as a fully privatised company is fully in the private sector, as Osborne is now ensuring Royal Mail is a fully private sector company. However, as I said, Brown did not even push through even a partial private sector stake in the company anyway
Well the franchise could have been opened up to competition and different bids, Brown did not even consider that but nationalised it, at the time a move opposed by Cameron and Osborne. The East Coast rail line was only eventually opened to competition in 2015 when Virgin/Stagecoach was given the franchise for the line by the Coalition after a tendering process
So wrong on both counts
But, as recent events have shown, any privatisation is evil. I suppose you'll say that Brown would not have privatised the whole of the Royal Mail if he thought he could get it past his backbenchers?
The mere act of privatisation is, in the eyes of many on the left, utterly Thatcherite. And that is exactly what Brown was doing. Look at how the left hysterically (and nastily) reacted to Hinchinbrooke.
'Opening up' the franchises would have taken time they did not have because, as you admit, there needed to be a tendering process. And at least you've now realised that it was not really Virgin's bid: they are very much the smaller partner, used for name only. This takes time they did not have.
Look, when you cannot even get the basic facts right, as you have shown time and time again on this thread, just admit it instead of digging yourself deeper.
Brown did not even try to allow the private sector a stake in Royal Mail let alone privatise the whole thing so again his actions were far from Thatcherite. Brown did not in fact privatise anything, sub-contracting out a few hospitals to private companies is not privatisation whatever a few loony Trots say, that would be allowing those private companies to charge for healthcare, something even the Tories have not yet admittedly pushed through
If Brown was a true Thatcherite he would have allowed time for a tendering process, the fact he did not showed he was not
There is nothing wrong with my facts at all, a Thatcherite cuts taxes, cuts spending and privatises industries and services, Brown was not a Thatcherite by any definition of the word
Again, I suggest you read up on Brown's Gordon Brown's 'Sustainable Investment Rule', and tell me how that helps your argument. The fact he was too hopeless to stick to his own rule is another matter ...
Well you have encapsulated my argument in one sentence, he could not even stick to his own rules on sustainable spending let alone follow Thatcherite principles!
Urrrm, you have rather proved mine, by stating that his rules were Thatcherite. The fact he was too incompetent to follow them is entirely a different matter.
Game, set and match to me.
Obviously they were not as he even broke his 'supposed rules' leaving massive debt, massive spending and a massive deficit, a total breach of Thatcherite rules. So game, set and match actually to me
So you're admitting he set Thatcherite rules, then broke them because of incompetence?
It's rare that I say this on here, but you are being an utter twunt on this.
Well you can say you are going to do anything, that is irrelevant, you can only be judged on your actions and Brown's actions as premier were anything but Thatcherite
So the 'Sustainable Investment Rule' was anything but Thatcherite? The desired part-privatisation of the Post Office was likewise?
The PFI schemes? More privatisation in the NHS?
Wow.
But he failed to deliver the sustainable investment rule so obviously was not Thatcherite. He failed to even deliver a part privatisation of the post office, let alone a full privatisation, again not Thatcherite.
As I said there was no privatisation in the NHS in the true meaning of the word
Again, I suggest you read up on Brown's Gordon Brown's 'Sustainable Investment Rule', and tell me how that helps your argument. The fact he was too hopeless to stick to his own rule is another matter ...
Well you have encapsulated my argument in one sentence, he could not even stick to his own rules on sustainable spending let alone follow Thatcherite principles!
Urrrm, you have rather proved mine, by stating that his rules were Thatcherite. The fact he was too incompetent to follow them is entirely a different matter.
Game, set and match to me.
Obviously they were not as he even broke his 'supposed rules' leaving massive debt, massive spending and a massive deficit, a total breach of Thatcherite rules. So game, set and match actually to me
So you're admitting he set Thatcherite rules, then broke them because of incompetence?
It's rare that I say this on here, but you are being an utter twunt on this.
Well you can say you are going to do anything, that is irrelevant, you can only be judged on your actions and Brown's actions as premier were anything but Thatcherite
So the 'Sustainable Investment Rule' was anything but Thatcherite? The desired part-privatisation of the Post Office was likewise?
The PFI schemes? More privatisation in the NHS?
Wow.
But he failed to deliver the sustainable investment rule so obviously was not Thatcherite. He failed to even deliver a part privatisation of the post office, let alone a full privatisation, again not Thatcherite.
As I said there was no privatisation in the NHS in the true meaning of the word
He wanted to, he was just too incompetent to deliver it. Not even the sainted Maggie's most devoted followers would say she herself managed to achieve everything she wanted; that does not mean she was not Thatcherite.
As for your final line, perhaps you should tell that to the entire Labour Party, who seem to rather disagree with you.
Of course it does not count as a fully privatised company is fully in the private sector, as Osborne is now ensuring Royal Mail is a fully private sector company. However, as I said, Brown did not even push through even a partial private sector stake in the company anyway
Well the franchise could have been opened up to competition and different bids, Brown did not even consider that but nationalised it, at the time a move opposed by Cameron and Osborne. The East Coast rail line was only eventually opened to competition in 2015 when Virgin/Stagecoach was given the franchise for the line by the Coalition after a tendering process
So wrong on both counts
But, as recent events have shown, any privatisation is evil. I suppose you'll say that Brown would not have privatised the whole of the Royal Mail if he thought he could get it past his backbenchers?
The mere act of privatisation is, in the eyes of many on the left, utterly Thatcherite. And that is exactly what Brown was doing. Look at how the left hysterically (and nastily) reacted to Hinchinbrooke.
'Opening up' the franchises would have taken time they did not have because, as you admit, there needed to be a tendering process. And at least you've now realised that it was not really Virgin's bid: they are very much the smaller partner, used for name only. This takes time they did not have.
Look, when you cannot even get the basic facts right, as you have shown time and time again on this thread, just admit it instead of digging yourself deeper.
Brown did not even try to allow the private sector a stake in Royal Mail let alone privatise the whole thing so again his actions were far from Thatcherite. Brown did not in fact privatise anything, sub-contracting out a few hospitals to private companies is not privatisation whatever a few loony Trots say, that would be allowing those private companies to charge for healthcare, something even the Tories have not yet admittedly pushed through
If Brown was a true Thatcherite he would have allowed time for a tendering process, the fact he did not showed he was not
There is nothing wrong with my facts at all, a Thatcherite cuts taxes, cuts spending and privatises industries and services, Brown was not a Thatcherite by any definition of the word
Wow. I'm sure passengers on the EC would have liked the period of no services whilst the tendering process went on. Or the money the previous franchisee would have demanded to continue running the services.
You seem to see Brown as only being when we PM. You have to factor in everything he did whilst chancellor as well .
Again, I suggest you read up on Brown's Gordon Brown's 'Sustainable Investment Rule', and tell me how that helps your argument. The fact he was too hopeless to stick to his own rule is another matter ...
Well you have encapsulated my argument in one sentence, he could not even stick to his own rules on sustainable spending let alone follow Thatcherite principles!
Game, set and match to me.
Obviously they were not as he even broke his 'supposed rules' leaving massive debt, massive spending and a massive deficit, a total breach of Thatcherite rules. So game, set and match actually to me
So you're admitting he set Thatcherite rules, then broke them because of incompetence?
It's rare that I say this on here, but you are being an utter twunt on this.
Well you can say you are going to do anything, that is irrelevant, you can only be judged on your actions and Brown's actions as premier were anything but Thatcherite
So the 'Sustainable Investment Rule' was anything but Thatcherite? The desired part-privatisation of the Post Office was likewise?
The PFI schemes? More privatisation in the NHS?
Wow.
But he failed to deliver the sustainable investment rule so obviously was not Thatcherite
As I said there was no privatisation in the NHS in the true meaning of the word
As for your final line, perhaps you should tell that to the entire Labour Party, who seem to rather disagree with you.
Well he took spending to almost 50% of gdp so he obviously did not really want to otherwise he would have stuck to his guns. Thatcher did not achieve everything she wanted but nonetheless shifted Britain in a more rightwing direction economically, cutting the top tax rate, cutting spending and privatising industries, Brown by the end raised taxes and increased spending and shifted Britain in a more leftwing direction economically
The leftwing of the Labour party may well disagree but factually they are wrong, a truly privatised healthcare system would be on American lines pre Obamacare and as it was before the introduction of the NHS ie with private hospitals and charges for visiting the GP and for surgery
Of course it does not count as a fully privatised company is fully in the private sector, as Osborne is now ensuring Royal Mail is a fully private sector company. However, as I said, Brown did not even push through even a partial private sector stake in the company anyway
Well the franchise could have been opened up to competition and different bids, Brown did not even consider that but nationalised it, at the time a move opposed by Cameron and Osborne. The East Coast rail line was only eventually opened to competition in 2015 when Virgin/Stagecoach was given the franchise for the line by the Coalition after a tendering process
So wrong on both counts
But, as recent events have shown, any privatisation is evil. I suppose you'll say that Brown would not have privatised the whole of the Royal Mail if he thought he could get it past his backbenchers?
The mere act of privatisation is, in the eyes of many on the left, utterly Thatcherite. And that is exactly what Brown was doing. Look at how the left hysterically (and nastily) reacted to Hinchinbrooke.
'Opening up' the franchises would have taken time they did not have because, as you admit, there needed to be a tendering process. And at least you've now realised that it was not really Virgin's bid: they are very much the smaller partner, used for name only. This takes time they did not have.
Look, when you cannot even get the basic facts right, as you have shown time and time again on this thread, just admit it instead of digging yourself deeper.
If Brown was a true Thatcherite he would have allowed time for a tendering process, the fact he did not showed he was not
There is nothing wrong with my facts at all, a Thatcherite cuts taxes, cuts spending and privatises industries and services, Brown was not a Thatcherite by any definition of the word
Wow. I'm sure passengers on the EC would have liked the period of no services whilst the tendering process went on. Or the money the previous franchisee would have demanded to continue running the services.
You seem to see Brown as only being when we PM. You have to factor in everything he did whilst chancellor as well .
Well passengers may well have liked an effective private company taking over the tender once it had been awarded, as a true Thatcherite Brown would have made the argument, he did not but simply nationalised it.
You said Brown was a Thatcherite, if he was he would have been as Chancellor and PM, he would not have increased spending and not increased taxes in the way he did
Well passengers may well have liked an effective private company taking over the tender once it had been awarded, as a true Thatcherite Brown would have made the argument, he did not but simply nationalised it.
You said Brown was a Thatcherite, if he was he would have been as Chancellor and PM, he would not have increased spending and not increased taxes in the way he did
But what would happen in the meantime? There were three alternatives: stop services, pay the current provider more, or to take into DOR's care. The first was politically impossible; the second was political suicide for a Labour politician, so they were left only with the final option.
Actually, if you read back I said 'neo-Thatcherite'. But leaving that aside, you seem incapable of seeing evidence when it is laid out in front of you.
But to finalise this, from Wiki (yes, I know):
"The New Labour governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were described as "neo-Thatcherite" by some, since many of their economic policies mimicked those of Thatcher."
Well passengers may well have liked an effective private company taking over the tender once it had been awarded, as a true Thatcherite Brown would have made the argument, he did not but simply nationalised it.
You said Brown was a Thatcherite, if he was he would have been as Chancellor and PM, he would not have increased spending and not increased taxes in the way he did
But what would happen in the meantime? There were three alternatives: stop services, pay the current provider more, or to take into DOR's care. The first was politically impossible; the second was political suicide for a Labour politician, so they were left only with the final option.
Actually, if you read back I said 'neo-Thatcherite'. But leaving that aside, you seem incapable of seeing evidence when it is laid out in front of you.
But to finalise this, from Wiki (yes, I know):
"The New Labour governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were described as "neo-Thatcherite" by some, since many of their economic policies mimicked those of Thatcher."
No true Thatcherite would even consider nationalising a private company no matter what the obstacles were to getting a new private company to take the franchise. There did not even necessarily have to be a stop to services with the franchise only replaced after a new bidder had been found, after all parliament is sovereign.
Thatcherite or 'neoThatcherite' Brown was nothing of the sort, you seem totally incapable of accepting the evidence that Brown increased spending by the time he left office and increased taxes nor did he even introduce any privatisations in the true sense of the word. Brown was never a Thatcherite and never will be a Thatcherite, even Blair was not a true Thatcherite in the real sense of the word but he was more of a Thatcherite than Brown. Indeed I would argue Cameron is not really a Thatcherite either, though Osborne has some claim to be.
Key words in your quotes 'by some' and also the fact the governments of Blair and Brown were lumped together
As I said earlier, actually game, set and match to me
Well passengers may well have liked an effective private company taking over the tender once it had been awarded, as a true Thatcherite Brown would have made the argument, he did not but simply nationalised it.
You said Brown was a Thatcherite, if he was he would have been as Chancellor and PM, he would not have increased spending and not increased taxes in the way he did
But what would happen in the meantime? There were three alternatives: stop services, pay the current provider more, or to take into DOR's care. The first was politically impossible; the second was political suicide for a Labour politician, so they were left only with the final option.
Actually, if you read back I said 'neo-Thatcherite'. But leaving that aside, you seem incapable of seeing evidence when it is laid out in front of you.
But to finalise this, from Wiki (yes, I know):
"The New Labour governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were described as "neo-Thatcherite" by some, since many of their economic policies mimicked those of Thatcher."
No true Thatcherite would even consider nationalising a private company no matter what the obstacles were to getting a new private company to take the franchise. There did not even necessarily have to be a stop to services with the franchise only replaced after a new bidder had been found, after all parliament is sovereign.
Thatcherite or 'neoThatcherite' Brown was nothing of the sort, you seem totally incapable of accepting the evidence that Brown increased spending by the time he left office and increased taxes nor did he even introduce any privatisations in the true sense of the word. Brown was never a Thatcherite and never will be a Thatcherite, even Blair was not a true Thatcherite in the real sense of the word but he was more of a Thatcherite than Brown. Indeed I would argue Cameron is not really a Thatcherite either, though Osborne has some claim to be.
Key words in your quotes 'by some' and also the fact the governments of Blair and Brown were lumped together
As I said earlier, actually game, set and match to me
You have given no evidence: you have just repeated the same spurious comments (actually, just two) regardless of any contrary evidence presented. You have given no links to back up your comments, and no other supporting evidence.
And now you have gone down the 'No true Scotsman' route. I mean, come on.
I suggest we leave this here - you seem to be having enough fun arguing a poor point from a bad position on the next thread, without having to do it here as well ...
Well passengers may well have liked an effective private company taking over the tender once it had been awarded, as a true Thatcherite Brown would have made the argument, he did not but simply nationalised it.
You said Brown was a Thatcherite, if he was he would have been as Chancellor and PM, he would not have increased spending and not increased taxes in the way he did
But what would happen in the meantime? There were three alternatives: stop services, pay the current provider more, or to take into DOR's care. The first was politically impossible; the second was political suicide for a Labour politician, so they were left only with the final option.
Actually, if you read back I said 'neo-Thatcherite'. But leaving that aside, you seem incapable of seeing evidence when it is laid out in front of you.
But to finalise this, from Wiki (yes, I know):
"The New Labour governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were described as "neo-Thatcherite" by some, since many of their economic policies mimicked those of Thatcher."
No true Thatcherite would even consider nationalising a private company no matter what the obstacles were to getting a new private company to take the franchise. There did not even necessarily have to be a stop to services with the franchise only replaced after a new bidder had been found, after all parliament is sovereign.
Key words in your quotes 'by some' and also the fact the governments of Blair and Brown were lumped together
As I said earlier, actually game, set and match to me
You have given no evidence: you have just repeated the same spurious comments (actually, just two) regardless of any contrary evidence presented. You have given no links to back up your comments, and no other supporting evidence.
And now you have gone down the 'No true Scotsman' route. I mean, come on.
I suggest we leave this here - you seem to be having enough fun arguing a poor point from a bad position on the next thread, without having to do it here as well ...
A Thatcherite is someone who cuts taxes, cuts spending and privatises, Brown did none of those things, that is the key evidence I have consistently given and you have consistently ignored and offered no evidence to refute. Margaret Thatcher would never have considered Brown a true Thatcherite as she would have considered the likes of Tebbit or Redwood or Liam Fox or Osborne or Farage who genuinely deserve the term.
You clearly do not accept it but the term 'Thatcherite' should only be applied to those who genuinely merit the term
A Thatcherite is someone who cuts taxes, cuts spending and privatises, Brown did none of those things, that is the key evidence I have consistently given and you have consistently ignored and offered no evidence to refute. Margaret Thatcher would never have considered Brown a true Thatcherite as she would have considered the likes of Tebbit or Redwood or Liam Fox or Osborne or Farage who genuinely deserve the term.
You clearly do not accept it but the term 'Thatcherite' should only be applied to those who genuinely merit the term
Thatcher did put up taxes. She nearly doubled VAT, for instance. Thatcher increased spending, in fact by 1.1% per annum on average in cash terms, but it did decrease - slightly - as part of GDP, thanks to growth. Thatcher nationalised Johnson Matthey.
According to you, Thatcher was not a Thatcherite ...
And, as I have amply shown, Brown privatised. He also had a series of fiscal locks, although proved incapable of keeping to them.
Also, I'd argue that 'Thatcherism' is much wider than the shallow definition you give above. And who are you to say who 'genuinely merits' the term?
A Thatcherite is someone who cuts taxes, cuts spending and privatises, Brown did none of those things, that is the key evidence I have consistently given and you have consistently ignored and offered no evidence to refute. Margaret Thatcher would never have considered Brown a true Thatcherite as she would have considered the likes of Tebbit or Redwood or Liam Fox or Osborne or Farage who genuinely deserve the term.
You clearly do not accept it but the term 'Thatcherite' should only be applied to those who genuinely merit the term
Thatcher did put up taxes. She nearly doubled VAT, for instance. Thatcher increased spending, in fact by 1.1% per annum on average in cash terms, but it did decrease - slightly - as part of GDP, thanks to growth. Thatcher nationalised Johnson Matthey.
According to you, Thatcher was not a Thatcherite ...
And, as I have amply shown, Brown privatised. He also had a series of fiscal locks, although proved incapable of keeping to them.
Also, I'd argue that 'Thatcherism' is much wider than the shallow definition you give above. And who are you to say who 'genuinely merits' the term?
You evidently cannot see the wood for the trees.
Thatcher cut direct taxes and the top tax rate from 90% to 40%, she cut spending as a percentage of gdp, the only realistically way given inflation spending would actually fall.
Thatcher privatised British Airways, British Telecom, British Gas, British Steel, British Sugar, National Express, Rolls Royce, Royal Ordnance and numerous water companies. Brown privatised sod all. The Bank of England did organise a rescue package for Johnson Matthey after a sequence of bad loans, purchasing it for £1 before it was ultimately sold to Mase Westpac.
As you have completely failed to show Brown did not privatise anything, all he did was outsource one hospital which as I have also showed did not privatise it, a privatised health service would be paid for privately not by the state.
As you have also shown Brown said one thing and did nothing and left a vastly higher level of spending as a percentage of gdp and a far higher deficit.
You seem to apply the term 'Thatcherite' to almost anyone, I suppose you will be saying Jeremy Corbyn, Michael Foot, Tony Benn and Arthur Scargill were Thatcherites next!
A Thatcherite is someone who cuts taxes, cuts spending and privatises, Brown did none of those things, that is the key evidence I have consistently given and you have consistently ignored and offered no evidence to refute. Margaret Thatcher would never have considered Brown a true Thatcherite as she would have considered the likes of Tebbit or Redwood or Liam Fox or Osborne or Farage who genuinely deserve the term.
You clearly do not accept it but the term 'Thatcherite' should only be applied to those who genuinely merit the term
Thatcher did put up taxes. She nearly doubled VAT, for instance. Thatcher increased spending, in fact by 1.1% per annum on average in cash terms, but it did decrease - slightly - as part of GDP, thanks to growth. Thatcher nationalised Johnson Matthey.
According to you, Thatcher was not a Thatcherite ...
And, as I have amply shown, Brown privatised. He also had a series of fiscal locks, although proved incapable of keeping to them.
Also, I'd argue that 'Thatcherism' is much wider than the shallow definition you give above. And who are you to say who 'genuinely merits' the term?
You evidently cannot see the wood for the trees.
Thatcher cut direct taxes and the top tax rate from 90% to 40%, she cut spending as a percentage of gdp, the only realistically way given inflation spending would actually fall.
Thatcher privatised British Airways, British Telecom, British Gas, British Steel, British Sugar, National Express, Rolls Royce, Royal Ordnance and numerous water companies. Brown privatised sod all. The Bank of England did organise a rescue package for Johnson Matthey after a sequence of bad loans, purchasing it for £1 before it was ultimately sold to Mase Westpac.
As you have completely failed to show Brown did not privatise anything, all he did was outsource one hospital which as I have also showed did not privatise it, a privatised health service would be paid for privately not by the state.
As you have also shown Brown said one thing and did nothing and left a vastly higher level of spending as a percentage of gdp and a far higher deficit.
You seem to apply the term 'Thatcherite' to almost anyone, I suppose you will be saying Jeremy Corbyn, Michael Foot, Tony Benn and Arthur Scargill were Thatcherites next!
I've given my evidence; it's not my fault if you ignore it whilst continuing on your myopic course.
I can't be sure whether it's hatred for Brown, or love for Thatcher, or a combination of both, which has caused you to be quite so stupid.
And I do not apply the term to any of those people: don't be so incredibly idiotic.
It's clear that you have little idea what Thatcherism was, yet alone what the term 'neo-Thatcherite' might mean.
At which point, perhaps we should both retire for the night.
A Thatcherite is someone who cuts taxes, cuts spending and privatises, Brown did none of those things, that is the key evidence I have consistently given and you have consistently ignored and offered no evidence to refute. Margaret Thatcher would never have considered Brown a true Thatcherite as she would have considered the likes of Tebbit or Redwood or Liam Fox or Osborne or Farage who genuinely deserve the term.
You clearly do not accept it but the term 'Thatcherite' should only be applied to those who genuinely merit the term
According to you, Thatcher was not a Thatcherite ...
And, as I have amply shown, Brown privatised. He also had a series of fiscal locks, although proved incapable of keeping to them.
Also, I'd argue that 'Thatcherism' is much wider than the shallow definition you give above. And who are you to say who 'genuinely merits' the term?
You evidently cannot see the wood for the trees.
As you have completely failed to show Brown did not privatise anything, all he did was outsource one hospital which as I have also showed did not privatise it, a privatised health service would be paid for privately not by the state.
As you have also shown Brown said one thing and did nothing and left a vastly higher level of spending as a percentage of gdp and a far higher deficit.
You seem to apply the term 'Thatcherite' to almost anyone, I suppose you will be saying Jeremy Corbyn, Michael Foot, Tony Benn and Arthur Scargill were Thatcherites next!
I've given my evidence; it's not my fault if you ignore it whilst continuing on your myopic course.
I can't be sure whether it's hatred for Brown, or love for Thatcher, or a combination of both, which has caused you to be quite so stupid.
And I do not apply the term to any of those people: don't be so incredibly idiotic.
It's clear that you have little idea what Thatcherism was, yet alone what the term 'neo-Thatcherite' might mean.
At which point, perhaps we should both retire for the night.
I have not ignored it, I have just pointed out consistently that the 10% higher spending Brown left and the 10% higher top tax rate Brown left could on no definition of the word be considered Thatcherite. I have made clear umpteen times Thatcherism is the belief in lower taxes, lower spending and privatised industry. Brown did nothing of the sort as PM. Had Brown acted as PM as he acted as Chancellor there may have been some grounds for your argument, but he did not, his true colours were exposed once he ran the show himself and he was not disciple of Mrs Thatcher.
I have not ignored it, I have just pointed out consistently that the 10% higher spending Brown left and the 10% higher top tax rate Brown left could on no definition of the word be considered Thatcherite. I have made clear umpteen times Thatcherism is the belief in lower taxes, lower spending and privatised industry. Brown did nothing of the sort as PM. Had Brown acted as PM as he acted as Chancellor there may have been some grounds for your argument, but he did not, his true colours were exposed once he ran the show himself and he was not disciple of Mrs Thatcher.
You have ignored it; you just repeat the same old rubbish in reply.
Firstly, your definition of 'Thatcherism' is extremely narrow. Perhaps you ought to read up a little more on the subject to be less myopic. You also ignore I said 'neo-Thatcherite'.
Secondly, when obsessing about finances, you ignore the various locks Brown tried to put into place, even if he was too incompetent to stick to them. Much of the 10% higher sending was down to the recession (which admittedly he had a big hand in causing), and you only look at the top rate of tax, not other taxes which Thatcher did increase. His intent was different to what occurred, but that does not mean the intent was absent.
Thirdly, it is nothing to do with being a 'disciple' of Thatcher. That just makes you sound like a weirdo.
Brown was an integral part of the New Labour project in fact, he was number two behind Blair. That project moved Labour from a leftist position to embrace many of Thatcher's ideals - they did not roll back trade union reform, they tried for fiscal prudence, kept right-to-buy, etc, etc.. Hence neo-Thatcherism.
They were held back by the drag of their party, which was more to the left. But it is undeniable that they were Thatcherite, especially when you compare it to where the party had come from. Even Blair's controlling style of leadership, rather than a more cabinet-based system, mirrored Thatcher.
In fact, you have ignored the one area they were probably not Thatcherite, and which the lady might have had great trouble with - the social changes Brown and Blair made.
Thatcherite or neo Thatcherite no definition of the word encompasses the higher spending and higher taxes Brown left. As you say even if much of the increase in spending was down to the Financial Crash Brown had a part in that and he did not need to bail out every bank which asked as even George W Bush let Lehmans go bust. Thatcher cut direct taxes on income she did increase some taxes on consumption but it was the income tax cuts which boosted wealth creation. A true Thatcherite would not have increased income tax as Brown did
A true Thatcherite is someone who consistently follows Thatcherite principles not just someone who is not a Marxist. New Labour kept some of Thatcher's reforms but they did not go further as a true Thatcherite would by cutting spending and income tax further and privatizing more industries
The social changes they made I agree were not really Thatcherite either if you look beyond the economic sphere and the fact they were accepted by Cameron could show he was no Thatcherite true alhough Thatcher was an early supporter of issues like decriminalization of homosexuality
To be fair, the Thatcherites didn't really know what Thatcherism was at the time. Or much else either. They have bodged together a philosophy after the event. I remember being told by a Conservative Party member in 1979, before that year's election, that the answer to unemployment was to encourage entrepreneurs like Freddie Laker. The first was shortly 3 million and the second was shortly bust.
Thatcherite or neo Thatcherite no definition of the word encompasses the higher spending and higher taxes Brown left. As you say even if much of the increase in spending was down to the Financial Crash Brown had a part in that and he did not need to bail out every bank which asked as even George W Bush let Lehmans go bust. Thatcher cut direct taxes on income she did increase some taxes on consumption but it was the income tax cuts which boosted wealth creation. A true Thatcherite would not have increased income tax as Brown did
A true Thatcherite is someone who consistently follows Thatcherite principles not just someone who is not a Marxist. New Labour kept some of Thatcher's reforms but they did not go further as a true Thatcherite would by cutting spending and income tax further and privatizing more industries
The social changes they made I agree were not really Thatcherite either if you look beyond the economic sphere and the fact they were accepted by Cameron could show he was no Thatcherite true alhough Thatcher was an early supporter of issues like decriminalization of homosexuality
Your definition of Thatcherite and the principles is, frankly, rather stupid.
As I have shown, Thatcher did not consistently follow Thatcherite principles.
Thatcherite or neo Thatcherite no definition of the word encompasses the higher spending and higher taxes Brown left. As you say even if much of the increase in spending was down to the Financial Crash Brown had a part in that and he did not need to bail out every bank which asked as even George W Bush let Lehmans go bust. Thatcher cut direct taxes on income she did increase some taxes on consumption but it was the income tax cuts which boosted wealth creation. A true Thatcherite would not have increased income tax as Brown did
A true Thatcherite is someone who consistently follows Thatcherite principles not just someone who is not a Marxist. New Labour kept some of Thatcher's reforms but they did not go further as a true Thatcherite would by cutting spending and income tax further and privatizing more industries
The social changes they made I agree were not really Thatcherite either if you look beyond the economic sphere and the fact they were accepted by Cameron could show he was no Thatcherite true alhough Thatcher was an early supporter of issues like decriminalization of homosexuality
Your definition of Thatcherite and the principles is, frankly, rather stupid.
As I have shown, Thatcher did not consistently follow Thatcherite principles.
On which note, I shall say goodbye.
As I have shown when Thatcher left office she had cut spending and income tax Brown when he left office had increased both
Thatcherite or neo Thatcherite no definition of the word encompasses the higher spending and higher taxes Brown left. As you say even if much of the increase in spending was down to the Financial Crash Brown had a part in that and he did not need to bail out every bank which asked as even George W Bush let Lehmans go bust. Thatcher cut direct taxes on income she did increase some taxes on consumption but it was the income tax cuts which boosted wealth creation. A true Thatcherite would not have increased income tax as Brown did
A true Thatcherite is someone who consistently follows Thatcherite principles not just someone who is not a Marxist. New Labour kept some of Thatcher's reforms but they did not go further as a true Thatcherite would by cutting spending and income tax further and privatizing more industries
The social changes they made I agree were not really Thatcherite either if you look beyond the economic sphere and the fact they were accepted by Cameron could show he was no Thatcherite true alhough Thatcher was an early supporter of issues like decriminalization of homosexuality
Your definition of Thatcherite and the principles is, frankly, rather stupid.
As I have shown, Thatcher did not consistently follow Thatcherite principles.
On which note, I shall say goodbye.
As I have shown when Thatcher left office she had cut spending and income tax Brown when he left office had increased both
And you really think that was all Thatcherism was about?
Wow.
And btw, you hadn't shown those at all, at least not conclusively.
Thatcherite or neo Thatcherite no definition of the word encompasses the higher spending and higher taxes Brown left. As you say even if much of the increase in spending was down to the Financial Crash Brown had a part in that and he did not need to bail out every bank which asked as even George W Bush let Lehmans go bust. Thatcher cut direct taxes on income she did increase some taxes on consumption but it was the income tax cuts which boosted wealth creation. A true Thatcherite would not have increased income tax as Brown did
A true Thatcherite is someone who consistently follows Thatcherite principles not just someone who is not a Marxist. New Labour kept some of Thatcher's reforms but they did not go further as a true Thatcherite would by cutting spending and income tax further and privatizing more industries
The social changes they made I agree were not really Thatcherite either if you look beyond the economic sphere and the fact they were accepted by Cameron could show he was no Thatcherite true alhough Thatcher was an early supporter of issues like decriminalization of homosexuality
Your definition of Thatcherite and the principles is, frankly, rather stupid.
As I have shown, Thatcher did not consistently follow Thatcherite principles.
On which note, I shall say goodbye.
As I have shown when Thatcher left office she had cut spending and income tax Brown when he left office had increased both
And you really think that was all Thatcherism was about?
Wow.
And btw, you hadn't shown those at all, at least not conclusively.
Plus taming of the unions of course and I have shown umpteen times Thatcher cut the top tax rate from 90% to 40% and spending as a percentage of gdp to 35% just you have chosen to ignore it
Thatcherite or neo Thatcherite no definition of the word encompasses the higher spending and higher taxes Brown left. As you say even if much of the increase in spending was down to the Financial Crash Brown had a part in that and he did not need to bail out every bank which asked as even George W Bush let Lehmans go bust. Thatcher cut direct taxes on income she did increase some taxes on consumption but it was the income tax cuts which boosted wealth creation. A true Thatcherite would not have increased income tax as Brown did
A true Thatcherite is someone who consistently follows Thatcherite principles not just someone who is not a Marxist. New Labour kept some of Thatcher's reforms but they did not go further as a true Thatcherite would by cutting spending and income tax further and privatizing more industries
The social changes they made I agree were not really Thatcherite either if you look beyond the economic sphere and the fact they were accepted by Cameron could show he was no Thatcherite true alhough Thatcher was an early supporter of issues like decriminalization of homosexuality
Your definition of Thatcherite and the principles is, frankly, rather stupid.
As I have shown, Thatcher did not consistently follow Thatcherite principles.
On which note, I shall say goodbye.
As I have shown when Thatcher left office she had cut spending and income tax Brown when he left office had increased both
And you really think that was all Thatcherism was about?
Wow.
And btw, you hadn't shown those at all, at least not conclusively.
Plus taming of the unions of course and I have shown umpteen times Thatcher cut the top tax rate from 90% to 40% and spending as a percentage of gdp to 35% just you have chosen to ignore it
Please read the thread back. I have not ignored it. You are just incredibly narrowly defining Thatcherism in a perverse manner. I have given links backing up my assertions. You have not.
Thatcherite or neo Thatcherite no definition of the word encompasses the higher spending and higher taxes Brown left. As you say even if much of the increase in spending was down to the Financial Crash Brown had a part in that and he did not need to bail out every bank which asked as even George W Bush let Lehmans go bust. Thatcher cut direct taxes on income she did increase some taxes on consumption but it was the income tax cuts which boosted wealth creation. A true Thatcherite would not have increased income tax as Brown did
A true Thatcherite is someone who consistently follows Thatcherite principles not just someone who is not a Marxist. New Labour kept some of Thatcher's reforms but they did not go further as a true Thatcherite would by cutting spending and income tax further and privatizing more industries
The social changes they made I agree were not really Thatcherite either if you look beyond the economic sphere and the fact they were accepted by Cameron could show he was no Thatcherite true alhough Thatcher was an early supporter of issues like decriminalization of homosexuality
Your definition of Thatcherite and the principles is, frankly, rather stupid.
As I have shown, Thatcher did not consistently follow Thatcherite principles.
On which note, I shall say goodbye.
As I have shown when Thatcher left office she had cut spending and income tax Brown when he left office had increased both
And btw, you hadn't shown those at all, at least not conclusively.
ignore it
Please read the thread back. I have not ignored it.
Good night.
What links? You posted one wiki link saying Labour governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were described as "neo-Thatcherite" by some (ie NOT all) and even that article suggests Ed Miliband, Brown's protege, was already moving away from much of Thatcher's legacy to a more mixed economy approach and if Labour elect Corbyn then we can safely say the Labour Party have ditched any trace of Thatcherism at all having elected a leader even more left than Michael Foot. Goodnight
What links? You posted one wiki link saying Labour governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were described as "neo-Thatcherite" by some (ie NOT all) and even that article suggests Ed Miliband, Brown's protege, was already moving away from much of Thatcher's legacy to a more mixed economy approach and if Labour elect Corbyn then we can safely say the Labour Party have ditched any trace of Thatcherism at all having elected a leader even more left than Michael Foot. Goodnight
That one link is more evidence than you've given in all your posts, which take an exceptionally narrow view of Thatcher's policies, her legacy, her politics, and economics in general.
I gave other links as well, for instance to the Sustainable Investment Rule, and to the fact that Brown wanted to privatise the Royal Mail but was stopped by his party, and to further privatisation in the NHS. Yet you seem to be arguing - oddly to my mind - that that sort of thing is not true privatisation, which rather goes against what everyone else is saying.
I agree with Labour under Corbyn; but that's got f'all to do with what we have been discussing.
What links? You posted one wiki link saying Labour governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were described as "neo-Thatcherite" by some (ie NOT all) and even that article suggests Ed Miliband, Brown's protege, was already moving away from much of Thatcher's legacy to a more mixed economy approach and if Labour elect Corbyn then we can safely say the Labour Party have ditched any trace of Thatcherism at all having elected a leader even more left than Michael Foot. Goodnight
That one link is more evidence than you've given in all your posts, which take an exceptionally narrow view of Thatcher's policies, her legacy, her politics, and economics in general.
I gave other links as well, for instance to the Sustainable Investment Rule, and to the fact that Brown wanted to privatise the Royal Mail but was stopped by his party, and to further privatisation in the NHS. Yet you seem to be arguing - oddly to my mind - that that sort of thing is not true privatisation, which rather goes against what everyone else is saying.
I agree with Labour under Corbyn; but that's got f'all to do with what we have been discussing.
The Sustainable Investment Rule Brown broke he only proposed to part sell off a stake in Royal Mail not privatise it and he did not even follow through on that and not did he propose to privatise the NHS by any definition of the word i.e. actually charging for the service so none of your links proved he was Thatcherite at all. Name one objective commentator who said Brown privatised the NHS?
What links? You posted one wiki link saying Labour governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were described as "neo-Thatcherite" by some (ie NOT all) and even that article suggests Ed Miliband, Brown's protege, was already moving away from much of Thatcher's legacy to a more mixed economy approach and if Labour elect Corbyn then we can safely say the Labour Party have ditched any trace of Thatcherism at all having elected a leader even more left than Michael Foot. Goodnight
That one link is more evidence than you've given in all your posts, which take an exceptionally narrow view of Thatcher's policies, her legacy, her politics, and economics in general.
I gave other links as well, for instance to the Sustainable Investment Rule, and to the fact that Brown wanted to privatise the Royal Mail but was stopped by his party, and to further privatisation in the NHS. Yet you seem to be arguing - oddly to my mind - that that sort of thing is not true privatisation, which rather goes against what everyone else is saying.
I agree with Labour under Corbyn; but that's got f'all to do with what we have been discussing.
The Sustainable Investment Rule Brown broke he only proposed to part sell off a stake in Royal Mail not privatise it and he did not even follow through on that and not did he propose to privatise the NHS by any definition of the word i.e. actually charging for the service so none of your links proved he was Thatcherite at all. Name one objective commentator who said Brown privatised the NHS?
Did you not read about Hinchinbrooke? You know, the hospital that Brown's government put up for tender, and they selected only private providers? Private providers within the NHS grew during Blair and Brown's period - I believe more so than during Thatcher's. Your insistence that 'privatisation' means the whole organisation is illogical, especially as Thatcher herself did not do so.
Brown wanted to privatise Royal Mail. The fact he did not was because of his backbenchers, not his instincts. Why would he go through all the pain of trying to get it through - as he did - if he did not believe it was right? He was even willing to use up scarce political capital and rely on Conservative support to do so.
He broke the Sustainable Investment Rule after the financial crash. It was also one of the first things he instituted after Blair's first victory in 1997. The idea of good, prudent finance is very Thatcherite.
So, wrong on all counts. His instincts were Thatcherite on many important issues, and therefore the term 'neo-Thatcherite' is deserved.
That one link is more evidence than you've given in all your posts, which take an exceptionally narrow view of Thatcher's policies, her legacy, her politics, and economics
I agree with Labour under Corbyn; but that's got f'all to do with what we have been discussing.
The Sustainable Investment Rule Brown broke he only proposed to part sell off a stake in Royal Mail not privatise it and he did not even follow through on that and not did he propose to privatise the NHS by any definition of the word i.e. actually charging for the service so none of your links proved he was Thatcherite at all. Name one objective commentator who said Brown privatised the NHS?
Did you not read about Hinchinbrooke? You know, the hospital that Brown's government put up for tender, and they selected only private providers? Private providers within the NHS grew during Blair and Brown's period - I believe more so than during Thatcher's. Your insistence that 'privatisation' means the whole organisation is illogical, especially as Thatcher herself did not do so.
Brown wanted to privatise Royal Mail. The fact he did not was because of his backbenchers, not his instincts. Why would he go through all the pain of trying to get it through - as he did - if he did not believe it was right? He was even willing to use up scarce political capital and rely on Conservative support to do so.
He broke the Sustainable Investment Rule after the financial crash. It was also one of the first things he instituted after Blair's first victory in 1997. The idea of good, prudent finance is very Thatcherite.
So, wrong on all counts. His instincts were Thatcherite on many important issues, and therefore the term 'neo-Thatcherite' is deserved.
Contracting out one hospital is NOT privatisation as I have consistently said as all the funding for its healthcare comes from the state. Privatisation of the NHS would not only require all hospitals to be privately funded but also those hospitals to charge patients for their services
Brown did not want to privatise Royal Mail he simply considered allowing a private sector stake in it not selling off the government's whole stake as Osborne has done and in the end he did not even go ahead with selling off a stake.
Even by 2004 well before the crash Brown was already spending more as a percentage of GDP than he was taking in in tax.
So wrong on all counts, he may have been more moderate than Foot or Kinnock but he was certainly no true Thatcherite
Contracting out one hospital is NOT privatisation as I have consistently said as all the funding for its healthcare comes from the state. Privatisation of the NHS would not only require all hospitals to be privately funded but also those hospitals to charge patients for their services
Brown did not want to privatise Royal Mail he simply considered allowing a private sector stake in it not selling off the government's whole stake as Osborne has done and in the end he did not even go ahead with selling off a stake.
Even by 2004 well before the crash Brown was already spending more as a percentage of GDP than he was taking in in tax.
So wrong on all counts, he may have been more moderate than Foot or Kinnock but he was certainly no true Thatcherite
I think you've just run into you own version of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.
Your definition of privatisation is as lacking as your definition of Thatcherism. You may consistently say your view, but it is consistently wrong.
On another note, Osborne has not yet sold off the entire Royal Mail: he has just sold half of the government's remaining stake, but they still retain 15%. I guess you're saying that the RM has not been privatised?
Contracting out one hospital is NOT privatisation as I have consistently said as all the funding for its healthcare comes from the state. Privatisation of the NHS would not only require all hospitals to be privately funded but also those hospitals to charge patients for their services
Brown did not want to privatise Royal Mail he simply considered allowing a private sector stake in it not selling off the government's whole stake as Osborne has done and in the end he did not even go ahead with selling off a stake.
Even by 2004 well before the crash Brown was already spending more as a percentage of GDP than he was taking in in tax.
So wrong on all counts, he may have been more moderate than Foot or Kinnock but he was certainly no true Thatcherite
I think you've just run into you own version of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.
Your definition of privatisation is as lacking as your definition of Thatcherism. You may consistently say your view, but it is consistently wrong.
On another note, Osborne has not yet sold off the entire Royal Mail: he has just sold half of the government's remaining stake, but they still retain 15%. I guess you're saying that the RM has not been privatised?
A definition of privatisation 'The transfer of ownership, property or business from the government to the private sector is termed privatization. The government ceases to be the owner of the entity or business. ' http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/definition/privatization
Selling off a stake in Royal Mail is not privatisation. Osborne only announced the complete sell off of Royal Mail in the Budget, it has already been halved from 30% to 15% and he and Sajid Javid made quite clear it would be fully sold by the end of the Parliament http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33004664
A definition of privatisation 'The transfer of ownership, property or business from the government to the private sector is termed privatization. The government ceases to be the owner of the entity or business. ' http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/definition/privatization
Selling off a stake in Royal Mail is not privatisation. Osborne only announced the complete sell off of Royal Mail in the Budget, it has already been halved from 30% to 15% and he and Sajid Javid made quite clear it would be fully sold by the end of the Parliament http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33004664
You pick your definition, I'll pick mine:
Privatization, also spelled privatisation, may have several meanings. Primarily, it is the process of transferring ownership of a business, enterprise, agency, public service, or public property from the public sector (a government) to the private sector, either to a business that operates for a profit or to a nonprofit organization. It may also mean government outsourcing of services or functions to private firms, e.g. revenue collection, law enforcement, and prison management.
Which is exactly the way people use it when they talk about privatisation of services like the NHS. Your link's definition is rather narrow. Also not it does not say the whole entity has to be transferred in total: entities can be part-privatised, and that is still privatisation.
I'm rather startled that you think that selling off stakes in the Royal Mail to the private sector was not privatisation. You should write letters to everyone, from the media, to the government, and the unions, who say it was.
A definition of privatisation 'The transfer of ownership, property or business from the government to the private sector is termed privatization. The government ceases to be the owner of the entity or business. ' http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/definition/privatization
Selling off a stake in Royal Mail is not privatisation. Osborne only announced the complete sell off of Royal Mail in the Budget, it has already been halved from 30% to 15% and he and Sajid Javid made quite clear it would be fully sold by the end of the Parliament http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33004664
You pick your definition, I'll pick mine:
Privatization, also spelled privatisation, may have several meanings. Primarily, it is the process of transferring ownership of a business, enterprise, agency, public service, or public property from the public sector (a government) to the private sector, either to a business that operates for a profit or to a nonprofit organization. It may also mean government outsourcing of services or functions to private firms, e.g. revenue collection, law enforcement, and prison management.
Which is exactly the way people use it when they talk about privatisation of services like the NHS. Your link's definition is rather narrow. Also not it does not say the whole entity has to be transferred in total: entities can be part-privatised, and that is still privatisation.
I'm rather startled that you think that selling off stakes in the Royal Mail to the private sector was not privatisation. You should write letters to everyone, from the media, to the government, and the unions, who say it was.
Even on your definition Brown did not privatise Royal Mail as he did not transfer ownership of it outright to the private sector. I don't think anyone said it was privatisation just selling off a stake. Even your wiki definition uses the qualifier 'may' as if it does not include charging for a service then it is not full privatisation if it is entirely funded by government.
Privatization, also spelled privatisation, may have several meanings. Primarily, it is the process of transferring ownership of a business, enterprise, agency, public service, or public property from the public sector (a government) to the private sector, either to a business that operates for a profit or to a nonprofit organization. It may also mean government outsourcing of services or functions to private firms, e.g. revenue collection, law enforcement, and prison management.
Which is exactly the way people use it when they talk about privatisation of services like the NHS. Your link's definition is rather narrow. Also not it does not say the whole entity has to be transferred in total: entities can be part-privatised, and that is still privatisation.
I'm rather startled that you think that selling off stakes in the Royal Mail to the private sector was not privatisation. You should write letters to everyone, from the media, to the government, and the unions, who say it was.
Even on your definition Brown did not privatise Royal Mail as he did not transfer ownership of it outright to the private sector. I don't think anyone said it was privatisation just selling off a stake. Even your wiki definition uses the qualifier 'may' as if it does not include charging for a service then it is not full privatisation if it is entirely funded by government.
You see, that's where you're going wrong. You think that 'privatisation' means 'outright'. In that, you are obviously very wrong. It is perfectly possible to part-privatise something; in other words to transfer part of the ownership of an entity (or a service) to the private sector.
That process is still privatisation.
As for your Royal Mail comments: just look at all the press and what was said at the time. The dreaded 'p' word occurred rather frequently.
Since you are using a stupidly narrow definition of 'privatisation', and one that goes contrary to its usage by everyone else, it seems that we are just going to be fated to permanently disagree.
Comments
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/feb/22/royal-mail-peter-mandelson
As for the East Coast, that was only because the previous franchise failed.
In addition, can't you remember Gordon Brown's 'Sustainable Investment Rule', which he stuck to for twelve years?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_investment_rule
Whether the previous franchise 'failed' is a matter of debate, even if it did he could have replaced it with another private company not nationalised it
Brown's 'Sustainable Investment Rule' in the end meant bugger all when he left Britain with one of the biggest deficits in its history when he was finally voted out
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_investment_rule
And the problem with letting another private company run EC was that none had the bandwidth or capability (in practice or legally) to immediately do so. And an immediate solution was required.
And you're also admitting that Brown's instincts were a distinctly Thatcherite balancing of the books, even if he was too cack-handed to achieve it. Good. Further progress.
I am sure the likes of Richard Branson would have jumped at the chance to run the EC line and would have been capable of doing so
Brown's instincts were nothing of the kind, he pretended to be a fiscal conservative under Blair to win votes, once he became PM and ran the show his true colours came out and he left a huge deficit and a large increase in spending
Game, set and match to me.
Wow.
As for Branson: firstly, some services are branded 'Virgin' rather than being owned by them. In fact, that's the case for the current EC contract, where Virgin own only 10% ad Stagecoach 90%. Such joint ventures are not undertaken overnight.
If Virgin had accepted the EC contract - if they wanted it in totality - then all the other franchisers and would-be franchisers would rightly have complained. In fact, the temporary nationalisation of EC (and they admitted it would be temporary) allowed good Thactcherite ideas such as competition to win through.
Not only are you wrong, you are apparently clueless.
It's rare that I say this on here, but you are being an utter twunt on this.
Well the franchise could have been opened up to competition and different bids, Brown did not even consider that but nationalised it, at the time a move opposed by Cameron and Osborne. The East Coast rail line was only eventually opened to competition in 2015 when Virgin/Stagecoach was given the franchise for the line by the Coalition after a tendering process
So wrong on both counts
The mere act of privatisation is, in the eyes of many on the left, utterly Thatcherite. And that is exactly what Brown was doing. Look at how the left hysterically (and nastily) reacted to Hinchinbrooke.
'Opening up' the franchises would have taken time they did not have because, as you admit, there needed to be a tendering process. And at least you've now realised that it was not really Virgin's bid: they are very much the smaller partner, used for name only. This takes time they did not have.
Look, when you cannot even get the basic facts right, as you have shown time and time again on this thread, just admit it instead of digging yourself deeper.
The PFI schemes? More privatisation in the NHS?
Wow.
If Brown was a true Thatcherite he would have allowed time for a tendering process, the fact he did not showed he was not
There is nothing wrong with my facts at all, a Thatcherite cuts taxes, cuts spending and privatises industries and services, Brown was not a Thatcherite by any definition of the word
As I said there was no privatisation in the NHS in the true meaning of the word
As for your final line, perhaps you should tell that to the entire Labour Party, who seem to rather disagree with you.
You seem to see Brown as only being when we PM. You have to factor in everything he did whilst chancellor as well .
The leftwing of the Labour party may well disagree but factually they are wrong, a truly privatised healthcare system would be on American lines pre Obamacare and as it was before the introduction of the NHS ie with private hospitals and charges for visiting the GP and for surgery
You said Brown was a Thatcherite, if he was he would have been as Chancellor and PM, he would not have increased spending and not increased taxes in the way he did
Actually, if you read back I said 'neo-Thatcherite'. But leaving that aside, you seem incapable of seeing evidence when it is laid out in front of you.
But to finalise this, from Wiki (yes, I know):
"The New Labour governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were described as "neo-Thatcherite" by some, since many of their economic policies mimicked those of Thatcher."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thatcherism#Thatcher.27s_legacy
As I said earlier: game, set and match.
Thatcherite or 'neoThatcherite' Brown was nothing of the sort, you seem totally incapable of accepting the evidence that Brown increased spending by the time he left office and increased taxes nor did he even introduce any privatisations in the true sense of the word. Brown was never a Thatcherite and never will be a Thatcherite, even Blair was not a true Thatcherite in the real sense of the word but he was more of a Thatcherite than Brown. Indeed I would argue Cameron is not really a Thatcherite either, though Osborne has some claim to be.
Key words in your quotes 'by some' and also the fact the governments of Blair and Brown were lumped together
As I said earlier, actually game, set and match to me
And now you have gone down the 'No true Scotsman' route. I mean, come on.
I suggest we leave this here - you seem to be having enough fun arguing a poor point from a bad position on the next thread, without having to do it here as well ...
You clearly do not accept it but the term 'Thatcherite' should only be applied to those who genuinely merit the term
Thatcher increased spending, in fact by 1.1% per annum on average in cash terms, but it did decrease - slightly - as part of GDP, thanks to growth.
Thatcher nationalised Johnson Matthey.
According to you, Thatcher was not a Thatcherite ...
And, as I have amply shown, Brown privatised. He also had a series of fiscal locks, although proved incapable of keeping to them.
Also, I'd argue that 'Thatcherism' is much wider than the shallow definition you give above. And who are you to say who 'genuinely merits' the term?
You evidently cannot see the wood for the trees.
Thatcher privatised British Airways, British Telecom, British Gas, British Steel, British Sugar, National Express, Rolls Royce, Royal Ordnance and numerous water companies. Brown privatised sod all. The Bank of England did organise a rescue package for Johnson Matthey after a sequence of bad loans, purchasing it for £1 before it was ultimately sold to Mase Westpac.
As you have completely failed to show Brown did not privatise anything, all he did was outsource one hospital which as I have also showed did not privatise it, a privatised health service would be paid for privately not by the state.
As you have also shown Brown said one thing and did nothing and left a vastly higher level of spending as a percentage of gdp and a far higher deficit.
You seem to apply the term 'Thatcherite' to almost anyone, I suppose you will be saying Jeremy Corbyn, Michael Foot, Tony Benn and Arthur Scargill were Thatcherites next!
I can't be sure whether it's hatred for Brown, or love for Thatcher, or a combination of both, which has caused you to be quite so stupid.
And I do not apply the term to any of those people: don't be so incredibly idiotic.
It's clear that you have little idea what Thatcherism was, yet alone what the term 'neo-Thatcherite' might mean.
At which point, perhaps we should both retire for the night.
Firstly, your definition of 'Thatcherism' is extremely narrow. Perhaps you ought to read up a little more on the subject to be less myopic. You also ignore I said 'neo-Thatcherite'.
Secondly, when obsessing about finances, you ignore the various locks Brown tried to put into place, even if he was too incompetent to stick to them. Much of the 10% higher sending was down to the recession (which admittedly he had a big hand in causing), and you only look at the top rate of tax, not other taxes which Thatcher did increase. His intent was different to what occurred, but that does not mean the intent was absent.
Thirdly, it is nothing to do with being a 'disciple' of Thatcher. That just makes you sound like a weirdo.
Brown was an integral part of the New Labour project in fact, he was number two behind Blair. That project moved Labour from a leftist position to embrace many of Thatcher's ideals - they did not roll back trade union reform, they tried for fiscal prudence, kept right-to-buy, etc, etc.. Hence neo-Thatcherism.
They were held back by the drag of their party, which was more to the left. But it is undeniable that they were Thatcherite, especially when you compare it to where the party had come from. Even Blair's controlling style of leadership, rather than a more cabinet-based system, mirrored Thatcher.
In fact, you have ignored the one area they were probably not Thatcherite, and which the lady might have had great trouble with - the social changes Brown and Blair made.
Thatcherite or neo Thatcherite no definition of the word encompasses the higher spending and higher taxes Brown left. As you say even if much of the increase in spending was down to the Financial Crash Brown had a part in that and he did not need to bail out every bank which asked as even George W Bush let Lehmans go bust. Thatcher cut direct taxes on income she did increase some taxes on consumption but it was the income tax cuts which boosted wealth creation. A true Thatcherite would not have increased income tax as Brown did
A true Thatcherite is someone who consistently follows Thatcherite principles not just someone who is not a Marxist. New Labour kept some of Thatcher's reforms but they did not go further as a true Thatcherite would by cutting spending and income tax further and privatizing more industries
The social changes they made I agree were not really Thatcherite either if you look beyond the economic sphere and the fact they were accepted by Cameron could show he was no Thatcherite true alhough Thatcher was an early supporter of issues like decriminalization of homosexuality
As I have shown, Thatcher did not consistently follow Thatcherite principles.
On which note, I shall say goodbye.
Wow.
And btw, you hadn't shown those at all, at least not conclusively.
Good night.
I gave other links as well, for instance to the Sustainable Investment Rule, and to the fact that Brown wanted to privatise the Royal Mail but was stopped by his party, and to further privatisation in the NHS. Yet you seem to be arguing - oddly to my mind - that that sort of thing is not true privatisation, which rather goes against what everyone else is saying.
I agree with Labour under Corbyn; but that's got f'all to do with what we have been discussing.
Brown wanted to privatise Royal Mail. The fact he did not was because of his backbenchers, not his instincts. Why would he go through all the pain of trying to get it through - as he did - if he did not believe it was right? He was even willing to use up scarce political capital and rely on Conservative support to do so.
He broke the Sustainable Investment Rule after the financial crash. It was also one of the first things he instituted after Blair's first victory in 1997. The idea of good, prudent finance is very Thatcherite.
So, wrong on all counts. His instincts were Thatcherite on many important issues, and therefore the term 'neo-Thatcherite' is deserved.
Brown did not want to privatise Royal Mail he simply considered allowing a private sector stake in it not selling off the government's whole stake as Osborne has done and in the end he did not even go ahead with selling off a stake.
Even by 2004 well before the crash Brown was already spending more as a percentage of GDP than he was taking in in tax.
So wrong on all counts, he may have been more moderate than Foot or Kinnock but he was certainly no true Thatcherite
Your definition of privatisation is as lacking as your definition of Thatcherism. You may consistently say your view, but it is consistently wrong.
On another note, Osborne has not yet sold off the entire Royal Mail: he has just sold half of the government's remaining stake, but they still retain 15%. I guess you're saying that the RM has not been privatised?
Selling off a stake in Royal Mail is not privatisation. Osborne only announced the complete sell off of Royal Mail in the Budget, it has already been halved from 30% to 15% and he and Sajid Javid made quite clear it would be fully sold by the end of the Parliament
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33004664
Which is exactly the way people use it when they talk about privatisation of services like the NHS. Your link's definition is rather narrow. Also not it does not say the whole entity has to be transferred in total: entities can be part-privatised, and that is still privatisation.
I'm rather startled that you think that selling off stakes in the Royal Mail to the private sector was not privatisation. You should write letters to everyone, from the media, to the government, and the unions, who say it was.
Which is exactly the way people use it when they talk about privatisation of services like the NHS. Your link's definition is rather narrow. Also not it does not say the whole entity has to be transferred in total: entities can be part-privatised, and that is still privatisation.
I'm rather startled that you think that selling off stakes in the Royal Mail to the private sector was not privatisation. You should write letters to everyone, from the media, to the government, and the unions, who say it was.
Even on your definition Brown did not privatise Royal Mail as he did not transfer ownership of it outright to the private sector. I don't think anyone said it was privatisation just selling off a stake. Even your wiki definition uses the qualifier 'may' as if it does not include charging for a service then it is not full privatisation if it is entirely funded by government.
That process is still privatisation.
As for your Royal Mail comments: just look at all the press and what was said at the time. The dreaded 'p' word occurred rather frequently.
Since you are using a stupidly narrow definition of 'privatisation', and one that goes contrary to its usage by everyone else, it seems that we are just going to be fated to permanently disagree.
Oh, and you might like this little gem:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2009/mar/10/privatisation