Tributes to Margaret Thatcher

Photo Credit : Wikipedia

How often do you have an opponent arranging a more honourable final send off? This was exactly what Tony Blair from Labour Party did to honour the late Margaret Thatcher of Conservative Party with a military funeral procession which is one level short of a state funeral. The Economist also noted that she was most probably the two most notable prime ministers in UK with Winston Churchill being the other. Churchill was remembered for Normandy that ended World War II. Thatcher most probably out ranked him with a smaller but more controversial Falklands Wars and creating an economic school of thought known as Thatcherism. President Ronald Regan is the other head of state that managed to postulate an economic school of thought called Reganomics.

Her ascent to 10 Downing Street was significant for 2 reasons. Firstly, she had to unseat the then leader of the Conservative Party Edward Heath who was bitter about this to the end before she lead the Conservative Party to victory in 1979 General Election. Secondly, her downfall was started by her own party colleague Michael Heseltine. Her premiership spanned from 1979 to 1980 making her the longest occupant of 10 Downing Street in 20^th century.

Thatcherism was a bitter pill for UK with the Labour Party deeply rooted Keynesian welfarism over a period of 44 hours. She was very convicted that UK needed to be weaned off Keynesian welfare state mindset. Many believed that Thatcherism was primarily an off-shoot of Chicago School of Economics championed by Milton Friedman who won a Nobel Prize. There were strong evidence to suggest that it was influenced much closer to home by Friedrich von Hayek from Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) who went on to share the Nobel Prize for his work on theory of money. Thatcher was widely reported to have many meetings with von Hayek than with Friedman perhaps due to geographical reasons. Neither von Hayek nor Friedman was officially appointed as her economic advisor. The trade unions and the Labour Party though defeated were her largest headache in steering UK to Thatcherism and perhaps won her the “Iron Lady” infamy. There was also joke that Thatcherism equals her domestic home economics.

The Falklands war in 1982 was a gamble that won Thatcher domestic support and was a key reason for her re-election 1983. With the bi-polar distribution of influence between US and USSR then, this war had the potential to escalate further up-stream between US and USSR. Good diplomatic posturing and the UN helped to keep the war between the two countries largely isolated. France had sold Exocet missiles to Argentina way before the war and officially went on record that they would stop selling and supporting the these to ease the historically difficult cultural Anglo French relations. UK for once proofed that military wise, it was not tail coating US and can stand on its own two feet. In hindsight, the wisdom of this war though short and causalities below a thousand each with Argentina suffering larger loses is questionable

Looking at the state of the Euro, perhaps UK should be thankful that Thatcher either had great foresight or simple common sense in limiting UK participation without the Euro. Given the current situation with the Euro, UK is spared some of collateral damage from the problems facing countries using the Euro.

As Margaret Thatcher is put to rest in peace, some has rightfully remarked that UK without Thatcher is like Cuba without the Sun.

Peter Lye aka lkypeter
Safe HarborPlease note that information contained in these pages are of a personal nature and does not necessarily reflect that of any companies, organizations or individuals. In addition, some of these opinions are of a forward looking nature. Lastly the facts and opinions contained in these pages might not have been verified for correctness, so please use with caution. Happy Reading. Copyrights of all contents in this blog belongs to Peter Lye unless stated otherwise.

Privileged Communications. Doctors v Lawyers.

Photo Credit : Internet

I have always wondered why thousand dollar a plate charity benefit dinners are always held in the best hotels in town. Food   so gastronomic that it is normally served with silver spoons that most of these guests are born with. Dressing wise, it is the standard tuxedo for men but for the fairer sex, it is a horrendous issue of God knows why?  I am lucky not being a woman. Needless to say, those that would benefit from such proceeds will most probably not get to eat at or dressed in such fashion in the near future. To me, why not cut these cost and donate everything to charity instead. This is sort of like wolves in sheep clothing aka hard core meritocracy dressed in charitable egalitarianism.

The social norm is to have alternating seating arrangements for couples. By the way, if you do not have a partner, you would normally have to go find one of acceptable social standing to accompany you. The intern in the public relations company responsible for this event made a mistake of arranging the wives of a doctor and lawyer to be seated beside each other with their husband to buffer. Their disdain for each other via stiff and acidic upper lip sarcasm was common knowledge in high society. What do you expect leaving arrangements to interns unsupervised! Their doctor and lawyer husbands were made aware of it during the pre dinner cocktail. Both agreed that it would serve their purpose and those in the table for the two gentlemen to be seated beside each other to minimize their feuding wives spoiling the occasion. The lawyer told the public relation staff to make the change and she was very apologetic to him for the fiasco.

After the cocktail, the guests were gracefully directed to their tables and seats personally. Both wives were surprised that they were in the table and threw a dirty look at their fellow spouse but the lawyer was quick to save the day by giving the excuse that he has some matters to discuss with the doctor and has arranged for both of them to be seated beside each other and it was their shout. The situation went extremely well with their wives finding like minded guests seated beside them and there was no sign that a tsunami was within sight between their wives. However, signs of an erupting volcano were showing at the table between the doctor and lawyer to everyone.

Photo Credit: Internet

Between the starter and soup, both gentlemen were engaged in a very plastic social butterfly conversation on which profession is more privileged. Women gossips about people but greater men discuss ideologies. Apparently both gentlemen were highly regarded in their profession and the comparison went on various planes. Just before the main course was served, they exchanged verbal torrent on which profession is older and therefore more respectable. A tolerant and introverted district judge that happened to be seated across the same table spoke louder than normal "prostitution as the oldest profession does not make it more respectable" to everyone surprise. The increasing loudness of their verbal exchange was annoying him. It startled everyone in the table but the judge looked around the table with a stoic and unapologetic manner and ask if anyone disagree speak up or forever hold their peace.

Seizing the opportunity, the lawyer asked the judge if he would referee on which profession is more privileged or honorable. The judge replied that on the count of honor, his answer was neither and it was for this reason he is addressed as honorable in formal occasions.

Photo Credit : Internet

As for which profession is more privileged when in comes to information as he understand it, it is most probably neither as well. He qualified that it could be  a biased opinion being a lawyer before becoming a judge. Doctors are last within the narrow pecking order as it is not difficult for judges to over ride doctor patient confidentiality and demand their testimonial. For lawyers, it is almost next to impossible to direct a lawyer to testify on privileged communication between him and his client but there are exceptions in some countries although in a very narrow manner.

Photo Credit : Internet

Lastly, the judge opined in his personal capacity that the most robust privileged communication is mostly probably spousal in a defining and conclusive manner and carried on working on his main course. In between the marbled cuts, he asked if there are any objections for the two couples to change seats so that everyone in the table can have a peaceful meal and everyone in the table clapped gently in unison and the change was made gracefully without further incidents.

Peter Lye aka lkypeter
Safe HarborPlease note that information contained in these pages are of a personal nature and does not necessarily reflect that of any companies, organizations or individuals. In addition, some of these opinions are of a forward looking nature. Lastly the facts and opinions contained in these pages might not have been verified for correctness, so please use with caution. Happy Reading. Copyrights of all contents in this blog belongs to Peter Lye unless stated otherwise.