Richard never came back on the 'totalitarianism' question; so I take it he gave me best on that one. But further thought on that topic:~ You [you know who you are] are all going on as if she was working all those years without any mandate or public or popular approval; whereas the fact of the matter is that she went on being re-elected to continue the popular policies which she made no secret of her intention to continue to implement, because SHE/THEY REPRESENTED THE PUBLIC WILL.   It's all very well you all going on about her iniquities; but can't you see that it is you lot patronising the nation who constantly re-elected her, wishing that she could have somehow been got rid of instead of being allowed to continue to represent the majority who had elected her ~~ which is what she was doing, or she wouldn't have got so systematically re-elected by the people: that is what "Democracy" means, isn't it?~~   can you really not see, Richard & the rest of you, that it is YOU who are demonstrating yourselves to be anti-democratic; so that it is your impulses, far more than hers, that can most appropriately be subsumed under the head of "totalitarian"? You constantly wish that the democratically expressed will of the people could have been overturned on your and Scargill's and all's say-so, because you disapproved of what whe was doing by the popular will. What could be more 'totalitarian' than that?

~Michael~