Thatcher a conservative by US standards ?

[nzrugby]

Originally Posted by juppiter

Yes, the majority party can do whatever it wants. But she knew dumping the NHS would mean a certain election loss. You can only go so far on principle.

Yet strangely enough she brought in the poll tax where richman, poorman, beggarman thief would all pay the same amount in local body taxes.
So one could say her principles cost her the job of being PM.

[theunbrainwashed]

Originally Posted by nzrugby

It is amusing to read US papers saying what a great conservative Thatcher was.
She did not dump the NHS in favour of US type Insurance based health care.
Nor did she even try to dump the monarchy.
Which was a pity because voters in Britain would have dumped her like a shot.
So how many of you believe she was a conservative by US standards ?

Do you know what the difference between a conservative and a reactionary is? It doesn't seem so, so let me give you a vocabulary lesson in English. A conservative is someone who conserves political traditions and/or strives to preserve progress made in certain areas, in this case the monarchy and the NHS. A reactionary wants to regress to certain points in the past. If Thatcher wanted to abolish the NHS, she'd be a reactionary, not a conservative. Most "conservative" US presidents are reactionaries, not conservatives. By contrast, the opposite of a reactionary is a radical.

Conservative seems to be one of the most misused and abused words in the English language political lexicon

[Finn_Jarber]

Originally Posted by juppiter

She was a conservative by US standards. Saying that she didn't dump NHS is like saying Reagan didn't dump Social Security. Politically it was not remotely feasible. NHS is the third rail of UK politics.

Not only did she refuse to dismantle it, she praised it and said single payer system must be the foundation for any HS arrangement.