My opinion as justification for what? That the opinion polls he quoted are rubbish? What "evidence" should I have provided to prove that? It's obvious and doesn't require evidence even if such evidence were available.

He kept continually referring to the same ridiculous polls as if somehow saying it over and over again makes them more legitimate, he changed the basis of his point several times, mis-represented the nature and results of the polls and has repeatedly asked me for evidence of a non-existent point that I have never made.



I'll ask the question again, since neither you nor Ajw seem able or willing to answer it...

which point have I made that required evidence to back it up?



If you cannot answer that, kindly do not respond.

Mainly because they were either self selecting, a very narrow pool of respondents or wooly questions.



If you ask an eight year old if the want some sweets you know what answer you are going to get more often that not.



Please tell me you are bright enough to see that the "polls" are a reflection of the question and the pool of respondents rather than any popularity contest.

Thing is though, I didn't just offer one or two polls, there were nine that all rank Thatcher highly. If I had offered one or two then I could appreciate that they might be questionable.



However every one of the polls ranks Thatcher highly. This is in stark contrast to what you and others on here believe in that she was no good etc.



If yours was a widespread belief (altough I appreciate it may be in certain areas of the UK) in the UK population she simply wouldn't rank so highly in every poll on the issue. She certainly wouldn't be ranked the 16th best Briton.



Now, I appreciate that you may not like her. Fine, but surely you can see that many people do and consider her one our best PM's?

That was the case in the 1990s when the "German disease" set in. I believe the more recent reduction has been in large part due to wage restraint.

You really don't get it so there is little point in trying to draw your attention to the irony of your post and the fact that you're almost there, you have almost answered your own question - heres a clue, look at your dodgy evidence and then read the second para (above) again.



But please continue your delusion, the rest of us find it quite amusing - just a kind word of warning though, when she does draw her last breath, don't stand up in any pub tap room anywhere near your house and declare that she deserves a state funeral for I'd hate for your delusions to be shattered in such a violent manner.

Then why are German wages and hourly rates higher than ours?

Because they are a more productive, higher value added economy.

Yes yes I get it now. Your opinion is correct and that of everyone else is wrong and irrelevant despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Yawn. Move along, nothing to see here.

Ah when all else fails there is the good old persecution complex.

Your data does not stand up to the scrutiny of a 12 year olds maths lesson.

:2jn20erv



Says RLFans' biggest Moaning Minnie.



:2jn20erv



No. It is not.



:2jn20erv



You do not avoid cutting disposable income by cutting pay. Cutting pay is utterly counterproductive for the wider economy. And yes – if the cost of living is rising by X%, then you ensure that people's pay rises by that at least. Except to fundamentalist neo-liberals, inflation is not the biggest problem on planet earth. See [url=http://www.amazon.co.uk/Things-They-Dont-About-Capitalism/dp/1846143284:2jn20ervHa-Joon Chang on this[/url:2jn20erv, for instance.



. You have been told about this more than once. There is growing recognition amongst the likes of KPMG for the business case of doing exactly this. I suspect that, if you haven't remembered this or don't understand it by now, you never will.

We have sacrificed any concept of life lived on the alter of work and buying more things.

Helped by not having a load of fundamentalist neo-liberal nutters selling them down the river.