Margaret Thatcher: Thirty years on

[Banquo's Ghost]

I'm rather surprised that no-one has thought to mark the thirtieth anniversary of Margaret Thatcher's victory in the 1979 election. Quite clearly one of the eminent politicians of her era, if not the entire twentieth century, she polarises as much now as when she lived in Number 10. Modern Britain (and it might be argued, much of the world) has been fundamentally changed by her legacy.

Bruce Anderson has written an interesting piece (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/bruce-anderson/bruce-anderson-cometh-the-hour-cometh-the-woman-1678545.html) on her influences which might serve as a starting point for discussion.


Here, she had the defects of her qualities, for it would have helped if she had been rather more intellectual. Thatcherism had no theory of the state. When an election was imminent, she would fill the gap by claiming that the NHS was safe with her. Otherwise, and in private, she came perilously close to the position which Carlyle caricatured as anarchy plus the constable. Defence and the police were vital. All the rest of the state was a mere unprivatisable residuum, which had to be preserved for electoral reasons but which would never be much good.

In this, she also displayed the narrowness of her imaginative sympathies. In Margaret Thatcher's world, you worked hard. In so doing, you reaped the harvest of upward social mobility: home ownership, share ownership, a healthy pension, private healthcare and private education. If she had been honest, Mrs Thatcher would have said that apart from a few bizarre, incomprehensible Lefties, it was a mark of economic failure to use state schools and not have health insurance. Although she has a partial excuse for not doing more on education, in that there were bigger dragons to slay, there is no evidence that she would ever have got the education system in a firm Thatcherite grip.

Her lack of imaginative sympathy had another important manifestation. Because of it, the Billy Elliott version of Thatcherism, though grotesquely exaggerated, does not lose all contact with truth. She did not set out to destroy vibrant working-class communities and replace them with the listlessness of hereditary unemployment. But again, if she had revealed her innermost thoughts, they would have included the belief that most of the unemployed have only themselves to blame: that those who really want work will always find it.

It must also be remembered that most of the industries which Mrs Thatcher is accused of destroying were already in the gun-sights of globalisation. They could not have continued to provide those who worked in them with a first-world standard of living. This country had impoverished itself by subsidising sunset industries. Eventually, that would have had to stop. Mrs Thatcher only accelerated the process.

[rory_20_uk]

Excuse me for indulging in a medical paralell:

The patient came to the doctor with a drug problem. The other doctor had just thrown methadone at the patient whenever they asked for it. They felt great, but their health was deteriorating.

The new doctor made them go without. They went into withdrawl. Wracked by pain, anxiety, nausea, diarrhoea for days at a time, barely able to keep fluids down. They got through it and were stronger and fitter because of it.

Some relatives were thankful that the junkie was reformed.
Some could not see past the suffering that the junkie had to do through.

The Thatcher years were harsh. But oddly running a deficit for ever isn't sustainable. Subsidising industries may make the worker's feel better, but the jobs aren't real. If these things had been addressed in the 1950's the upheaval would have been far less - left for longer it would have been even worse.

To detest her is either to be utterly selfish in that she destroyed the subsidies for your industry or is to display a dislocation with reality - somehow everything would have just magically turned around and the economy would have worked producing substandard goods at uncompetative prices even with subsidies.

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

The UK still has anniversary's that aren't about world citizenship??

[Rhyfelwyr]

Scotland is not a guinea pig. She's owes an apology (http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/westminster/display.var.2505797.0.Call_for_Thatcher_to_apologise_to_Glasgow.php).

[InsaneApache]

Excuse me for indulging in a medical paralell:

The patient came to the doctor with a drug problem. The other doctor had just thrown methadone at the patient whenever they asked for it. They felt great, but their health was deteriorating.

The new doctor made them go without. They went into withdrawl. Wracked by pain, anxiety, nausea, diarrhoea for days at a time, barely able to keep fluids down. They got through it and were stronger and fitter because of it.

Some relatives were thankful that the junkie was reformed.
Some could not see past the suffering that the junkie had to do through.

The Thatcher years were harsh. But oddly running a deficit for ever isn't sustainable. Subsidising industries may make the worker's feel better, but the jobs aren't real. If these things had been addressed in the 1950's the upheaval would have been far less - left for longer it would have been even worse.

To detest her is either to be utterly selfish in that she destroyed the subsidies for your industry or is to display a dislocation with reality - somehow everything would have just magically turned around and the economy would have worked producing substandard goods at uncompetative prices even with subsidies.

~:smoking:

^ What he said. :2thumbsup:

[Furunculus]

an excellent article, and the right person at the right time to turn around the shiny turd that was the good-ship-britain circling ever closer to the drain of history.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Scotland is not a guinea pig. She's owes an apology (http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/westminster/display.var.2505797.0.Call_for_Thatcher_to_apologise_to_Glasgow.php).

Why? If you don't pull your own bootstraps up they will be pulled for you.

Just for the record, the failure of the "poll tax" was not that it used the electoral register but that not everyone was required to be listed on said register, thereby creating potential unfairness.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I don't even want to argue about this, that woman was a criminal of the worst order.

It almost makes we want to consider independence just to prevent anyone similar ever coming to power again.

[Furunculus]

lol, despite being a massive Unionist, the fact that i know that many scots and welsh consider her politics evil almost makes me want them to secede so that at least english politics will no longer be polluted with lefty nonsense. :beam:

[rory_20_uk]

The need for Scotland died since Catholic France won't invade.

~:smoking:

[Rhyfelwyr]

It's all very well to say that once Scotland's industry has been crippled and the wealth sucked down to the south of England... the north can join us if they want.

[Che Roriniho]

Some people are considering a state funeral. Most, however, are wondering if she actually has to be dead before we bury her.

[Furunculus]

yeah, i have heard that joke before, and i laughed then too, but i still hold that nastiness of the view reflects badly on the teller.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's all very well to say that once Scotland's industry has been crippled and the wealth sucked down to the south of England... the north can join us if they want.

Your primary industries were shipbuilding and steelworks.

Given that we have no ore under the hills (and when we did it wasn't much good), and British ships were basically crap by this point there wasn't any other way for it to go.

Scottish industry wasn't making money, and it was allowed to fail. Same thing happened EVERYWHERE. The shipyards down here either went bust or shrivelled up and stopped taking on new men.

England suffered less because overall it had a more varried economy, more universities, more oppertunities. Everybody suffered somewhat under Thatcher, and likely everyone will suffer under Cameron as well.

Thing is, neither Dave nor Maggie can be held responsible for the excesses of a Labour government.

If you want to longe an intelligent compalint, you might want to start with the miss-management of the fallout, but that wouldn't change the weapon needed to save the economy.

[Pannonian]

One legacy not yet touched on in this thread is the culture of individualism, or the consumer culture. Whether this was made by the prosperity that Britain enjoyed, or whether it was made by the religion of individual responsibilities that Thatcher believed in, there was a shift from the old conservative ideas of social responsibility (conservative includes both Tories and socialists), towards an emphasis on individual rights (consumer rights), which society (the seller) had to fulfill. That IMHO was the greatest legacy of Thatcherism, which is why her politics cannot adequately be described as Tory or conservative, for it was neither, but liberal.

[rory_20_uk]

I think that by 1979 a lot of this had already happened. The 50's, 60's and 70's were all years where the old order fell away, so I think that these changes were already advanced when she came to office.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

good point, but i have always believed in traditional liberal politics, which is one reason why i don't vote liberal-democrat or labour.

[CountArach]

Here's to 30 years of greed!

[Louis VI the Fat]

Countries change over time. After the war, for decades, the UK was the most socialized country west of the Iron Curtain.


Yes, contemporary talk of ultra-liberalism as an 'Anglo'-tradition is historically off the mark. The UK and New Zealand - always the most 'British' of the dominions - had a social system that makes anything that ever happened in Scandinavia appear heartlessly ultraright. Neo-liberalism has spread from America into the British world. This neo-liberalism could make common cause with, trace some of its origin in, some British traditions. But on the whole, in the modern version it is an alien import into the (former) British world. Compare, for example, the vast difference in social systems that still divides Canada from the US. Britain, as is so often shamelessly forgotten both within and without the UK, is not a country with an inherent 'Anglo-style capitalist' tradition, but is instead the very inventor of the welfare state.

By 1979, Britain was bankrupt. A poor country, the second poorest in the EU. A new course was needed.

This, however, is not really what Thatcher did. She did not set out a new course* for Britian so much as destroy the obsolete. What she did, with sardonic pleasure one might add, was destroy the old in Britain. Arguably rightfully so. But with near psychopathic ruthlessness. Did she psychologically try to wash off the traces of her own modest origins by lashing out onto the poor?

*This honour, for better or for worse, I think belongs to Blair and New Labour.

[Louis VI the Fat]

It's all very well to say that once Scotland's industry has been crippled and the wealth sucked down to the south of England... the north can join us if they want.

The EU has Structural Funds. These have two aims: to 'cushion' economic transition. That is, investments into preserving the social fabric of regions that undergo economic transition. And two, to stimulate this economic transition form underdevelopment or obsolecence into a viable economy.

Scotland was left ravaged by the Thatcherite reforms. Whether these reforms were necessary is open to debate. I for one think they were. Even so, with breathtaking heartlessness, with an abruptness that borders on the brutal, Scotland was abandoned by London during the Thatcher era.

Scottish shipyards build an Empire. Empire gone, Scotland got the boot.

The European Union, however, will not abandon an entire region to poverty. Access to the world's largest market, and investments in economic infrastructure, have done for Scotland what London refused to do:

In Scotland, Structural Funds are the significant source of European Union funding for economic development in Scotland. Programmes run over a seven year period. From 2000-2006 Structural Funds spending provided over £1.1 billion of support for Scotland, supporting the Scottish Government's aims of boosting economic growth and improving productivity in Scotland while reducing economic and social disparities.Europe has never believed that Scotland (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Business-Industry/support/17404) or Ireland should be abandoned to perennial backwardness. Unlike Margaret 'I want my money back' Thatcher, Europe did believe that all those regions in the British Isles that were relegated by history and London into destitution could be propelled into viable economies through central investment.

[Idaho]

Thatcher was a product of the times. Her 'ideology' was non-existant. She largely just continued the monetarist policies imposed on Britain by the IMF in 1976. The ephemera of her ideology masked choices based on what she liked and who her friends were. What she said and what she did were usually completely divorced - "roll back the frontiers of the state", "reduce public spending" actually translated into the biggest increases of public spending and massive increases in state power and scope.

Privatisation of national industry was chanced upon. Her government needed to raise money quickly so decided to sell off govt assets. They were as suprised as anyone as to the popularity of the move - and retrospectively turned it into ideology.

The poll tax was chanced upon at random too. The civil service presented a range of options to replace rates. Almost as a joke the poll tax was tacked onto the presentation.

Her husband and her husband's circle all become multi-millionaires under her govt.

Like all British rightwingers - she held at her heart a contradiction. That people should be at liberty only to do the sorts of things she herself would do.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Modern Britain (and it might be argued, much of the world) has been fundamentally changed by her legacy.
Britain under Thatcher made an abrupt transition from a socialized welfare state into a neo-liberal economy. This, I think, was not so much owing to Thatcher as to Britain's economic history. No other country in Europe was this economically outdated. No other country was this socialized. This combination made the UK into one of Europe's poorest countries. For decades, with the exception of Ireland, the whole of democratic Europe enjoyed a higher standard of living than Britons. Britain was only slightly ahead of the wealthiest communist countries.

A change was inevitable. Two options were possible: a gradual, 'social' transition. Or an abrupt, heartless transition. Only this was the choice for Britain, not change itself. As such, as so often, the exceptional individual did not create history, history created the exceptional individual. A Thatcher would've happened anyway. One does not need to admire Thatcher for Britain's economic recovery in the 1980's anymore than one should admire a politician elected in February for bringing about spring and summer.

The only choice was heartless or social transition. Was Thatcher's choice of heartlessness right? I'll throw all the Thatcherites a bone. Within Europe's 'core', there are two other contemporaneous examples of transitions of regions who have similar outdated traditional industries combined with socialized welfare. These are Wallonia and Eastern Germany. Both chose the 'gradual, social' path to economic transition. Both failed, fail to this day. Despite continuous heavy support from the functioning part of the economy of their countries - Flanders in Belgium and the West in Germany - the transition is simply not coming about. This would suggest that going cold turkey is the viable option. Alas.

[Furunculus]

Here's to 30 years of greed!

after thirty years of slovenly and unnecessary decline it was a breath of fresh air!

[Furunculus]

Access to the world's largest market, and investments in economic infrastructure, have done for Scotland what London refused to do

you keep stating that free-market trading is some great bountiful gift of the EU, and not the natural state of civilised affairs, which i find bizarre. it isn't.

[Furunculus]

"roll back the frontiers of the state", "reduce public spending" actually translated into the biggest increases of public spending and massive increases in state power and scope.

Like all British rightwingers - she held at her heart a contradiction. That people should be at liberty only to do the sorts of things she herself would do.

got some figures to back that up boyo?

how very divorced from reality.

[Furunculus]

The only choice was heartless or social transition. Was Thatcher's choice of heartlessness right? I'll throw all the Thatcherites a bone. Within Europe's 'core', there are two other contemporaneous examples of transitions of regions who have similar outdated traditional industries combined with socialized welfare. These are Wallonia and Eastern Germany. Both chose the 'gradual, social' path to economic transition. Both failed, fail to this day. Despite continuous heavy support from the functioning part of the economy of their countries - Flanders in Belgium and the West in Germany - the transition is simply not coming about. This would suggest that going cold turkey is the viable option. Alas.

^ first sensible thing you've said on the issue, congrats ^ :clown:

[CountArach]

after thirty years of slovenly and unnecessary decline it was a breath of fresh air!
Greed > Imperial Decline

Right...

Not sure I follow?

[KukriKhan]

God... I guess it has been 30 years. I remember the Thatcher-Reagan-Kohl "team" as though they were last month.

From a US perspective (at the time): hard money times were upon us; we had a behemoth bent on our destruction to contend with, and militarily, we were all still finding our way in a post-colonial, post WWI/WWII (and for the US, a postVN) age. Previous regimes, pursuing a simultaneous "guns and butter" paradigm, had spent us into almost unfathomable debt and unemployment. Somebody had to make the hard decisions. They did.

I was not a fan of them at the time - I thought their policies picked on the already poor too hard. Looking back, though, I can see that events seem to control them and their decisions, more than vice-versa. Any so-called 'ideology' didn't actually exist beforehand, except rhetorically, but was rather contructed after the fact: "We've done this, and this, and that, therefore, we must believe this."

I still remember the muppetization of the 3 on TV; what a crack-up. :)

[Furunculus]

Greed > Imperial Decline

Right...

Not sure I follow?

I don't think you really appreciate the scale of the damage that was done by britain's retarded little flirtation with a centralised command economy.

the difference is obvious enough if you compare Britain in the mid seventies to britain in the mid nineties.

[Vladimir]

If you're looking for perfect governance keep looking. The Regan/Thatcher/His Hatness victory against the Soviets leaves me with a good impression of the era.

It's also interesting to see how people are lining up on this. So many people are following stereotypical patterns.

[HoreTore]

The only choice was heartless or social transition. Was Thatcher's choice of heartlessness right? I'll throw all the Thatcherites a bone. Within Europe's 'core', there are two other contemporaneous examples of transitions of regions who have similar outdated traditional industries combined with socialized welfare. These are Wallonia and Eastern Germany. Both chose the 'gradual, social' path to economic transition. Both failed, fail to this day. Despite continuous heavy support from the functioning part of the economy of their countries - Flanders in Belgium and the West in Germany - the transition is simply not coming about. This would suggest that going cold turkey is the viable option. Alas.

You're forgetting that we've taken the gradual choice successfully here in Scandinavia.

[rory_20_uk]

I hope this is countries aside from Norway, which since it floats on oil barely needs a financial model. The odd threat to Middle East supply is enough.

Gradual change might have worked. I'm sure what was done was not 100% efficient.

D-Day landings worked. I've heard it said that 30% of allied casualties were caused by allied bombs and shells.

~:smoking:

[InsaneApache]

I was around at that time and I still have vivid memories of it. They say the past is another country and when I look back it couldn't be more true. The unions had the country in a headlock and were squeezing the life out of the economy.

I remember getting my first job. The first day at work I was approached by a harriden of a shop steward who asked me if I was in the union. When I told her that I wasn't, I was told in no uncertain terms that if I wanted to keep my job, (I'd only been there five minutes), then I'd have to join the union. "It's a closed shop see, we won't have any blacklegs working here, so join or go!"

Needless to say I joined. Then I found out that even though I was too young to vote, a significant part of my union subs was being paid to the Labour party due to the levy. At least Dick Turpin had the decency to wear a mask when he was robbing you. :furious3:

Then there was the public sector. In those days if you wanted a telephone there was only one kid on the block. Post Office Telecommunications. You go to see them about having a phone installed. Yes you can have one but it's going to take six months to install the line. Don't like it? Then do without. Oh I nearly forgot you got a choice of 'phone. They were all indentical except one was red, one was white, one was bottle green and the last one was a fetching grey two tone. They all looked like something out of a WWII movie.

The winter of discontent did for the labour Party for a generation. You had to live through it to truly appreciate the horror of the time. Buses, on strike. Gravediggers, on strike. Binmen, on strike. Hauliers, on strike. I had to go on strike in sympathy with some blokes down the road who'd gone on strike. Were we asked? Not bloody likely. No vote, no discussion, just do as your told or risk becoming a blackleg. Nice. Don't you just love socialism in practice.

Thatcher was elected to clear out the Augean Stables of the Labour/Union alliance. By and large she suceeded. Thank god.

[JAG]

Let us forget the economic side for a second, because to a certain degree even though she did an inumerable amount of harm and disgusting acts - there were some good by products, such as getting rid of industries which would have been destroyed sooner or later by globalisation. The manner in which she did nothing for the lives of the people she turfed out of these industries is possibly her most damning act.

But as I said, forget her whole economic persuasion and look at the social legacy she has left the country. It could very well be said that the significant social problems we have now in modern Britain are directly caused by her disasterous social policy. The greed and me, me, me society she fostered, coupeld with the enabling of sink estates and gated communities. The selling off of council, community housing, destroying the ability of councils to house the most vulnerable. The dependence culture she fostered - it is alright to yell at people and get rid of most of their benefits and insist they get a job, but if there is a) no job to go to and b) no help in gaining skills for a job or better ways of gaining employment - then people give up and sink further and further into the mire, taking generations with them.

It is the social legacy she has left, especially in inner cities which may never get fixed. The Labour govt has tried to tinker around the edges and it has helped a little bit, but the problem is now that it is such an epidemic, it will only continue to get worse. That is her legacy. Millions of people in this country will never have a chance at social justice and social mobility no matter who is in govt, because of her time in power and the philosophy she infected onto our politics and Rory, to say those who don't like her and think she was not good for this country are "selfish", is the ultimate insult.

[HoreTore]

I hope this is countries aside from Norway, which since it floats on oil barely needs a financial model. The odd threat to Middle East supply is enough.

Screw Norway, look at Sweden instead.

[rory_20_uk]

The really horrible tower blocks were built before her. The idealistic thoughts that these would become vertical communities not crime ridden dens.

I am sure you are aware of the phrase she took the unemployed off the factory floor. This could / should have been done 10 or even 20 years previously. This failure to try to curtail the Union's power made things as bad as they were.

There was not enough retraining, but the other problem was that for many manual workers there is no job that could sustain them at the level they thought they deserved. East Asia was prepared to do as good or better job for less.

Some could be retrained, but in to what? The salaries would be low in the new industries due to supply and demand. This doesn't alter the fact that these measures wern't even tried in the majority of cases. Whether the coseted union members would have been able to "demean" themselves to this is another matter.

Y'know, if there are no jobs you can create them. It's called the Private Sector. You provide a service that people want which is better in some way than others. Seeing as how job protection and failure to innovate was so endemic I imagine that this concept was barely thought of by the vast mass of people.

I would argue that the benefits was the thing that allowed people to descend into an unemployed rut. In many places in the world you work or you starve - so you look for work, you find something to do and you get on with life. Not in the UK. You blame others, take the dole, wish for the days when your rights were wall to wall and blame everything for what happened to your life on others and are to ill informed to see how unsunstainable things were.

In America people are happy for success, and hope to get there themselves some day. Here we tear into anyone that achieves, trying to drown them in mediocrity, health and safety and red tape.

Jag putting oneself in front of the country is selfish.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

But as I said, forget her whole economic persuasion and look at the social legacy she has left the country. It could very well be said that the significant social problems we have now in modern Britain are directly caused by her disasterous social policy. The greed and me, me, me society she fostered, coupeld with the enabling of sink estates and gated communities. The selling off of council, community housing, destroying the ability of councils to house the most vulnerable. The dependence culture she fostered - it is alright to yell at people and get rid of most of their benefits and insist they get a job, but if there is a) no job to go to and b) no help in gaining skills for a job or better ways of gaining employment - then people give up and sink further and further into the mire, taking generations with them.

It is the social legacy she has left, especially in inner cities which may never get fixed. The Labour govt has tried to tinker around the edges and it has helped a little bit, but the problem is now that it is such an epidemic, it will only continue to get worse. That is her legacy. Millions of people in this country will never have a chance at social justice and social mobility no matter who is in govt, because of her time in power and the philosophy she infected onto our politics and Rory, to say those who don't like her and think she was not good for this country are "selfish", is the ultimate insult.

there are lots of working class people who have voted tory ever since thatcher in thanks for being able to own their own home, the prosperity is created changed their lives.

dependancy culture arises when you tax heavily from the poor then give a portion of that money back back to the poor, its called the client state, it was 'perfected by nu-labour, and its disgusting.

[rory_20_uk]

Screw Norway, look at Sweden instead.

I imagine that if we'd started to drift this way in the early 1950's the transition might have been relatively painless. I think we were still rebuilding parts of the country then of course post WW2.

~:smoking:

[Vladimir]

I imagine that if we'd started to drift this way in the early 1950's the transition might have been relatively painless. I think we were still rebuilding parts of the country then of course post WW2.

~:smoking:

Which is a good point. It seems like most people here aren't factoring in the devastation caused by the war and the subsequent rebuilding efforts.

[tibilicus]

Thatcher was a tale of two halves..

Whilst doing a great deal to change a lot in our fair country, she also made some horrible decisions. For a start, the manner in which she completely ignored her cabinet did her no favours, Thatcher thought she knew best when really she didn't. Her terrible guidance over the NI troubles was also an issue, she certainly didn't help ease the situation over there. Another bad point for me was the way she threw her foreign policy around like the British were still a world player, no doubt Thatcher tried to hold onto the remaining British colonies with all she could. The Falklands isn't such a big issue for me, all the sinking of the Belgrano was..

Edit:

Can't believe I forgot the poll tax. Nothing has to be said about that other than it was one of the biggest political backfires of the modern era. An attempt to tighten the control of the conservative party even more ultimately failed.

[Che Roriniho]

Here's to 30 years of greed!

Hear Hear! The thing is with Thatcher, is she and Reagan decided that Trickle-down economics actually worked, somehow. They are, what we call in conversation, idiots.

[Vladimir]

Hear Hear! The thing is with Thatcher, is she and Reagan decided that Trickle-down economics actually worked, somehow. They are, what we call in conversation, idiots.

No doubt that is considered spirited debate in those circles. :laugh4:

[Strike For The South]

This is the one that beat the hell out of Argentina for those islands with all the seals on them right?

[InsaneApache]

Yes. Penguins though, not seals.

[Furunculus]

Thatcher was a tale of two halves..

Her terrible guidance over the NI troubles was also an issue, she certainly didn't help ease the situation over there. Another bad point for me was the way she threw her foreign policy around like the British were still a world player, no doubt Thatcher tried to hold onto the remaining British colonies with all she could. The Falklands isn't such a big issue for me, all the sinking of the Belgrano was..


What was bad about her handling of NI?

What was bad about her handling of foreign policy? The two biggies were Cruise/Pershing and the Falklands?
And your disparaging remarks about the falklands totally belie the fact that it was sovereign british territory, the inhabitants of which wished to remain british. The belgrano was an enemy warship, which threatened a very precarious military mission to recover british territory and subjects from an invading aggressor, i would have sunk the ship, whats your problem with it?
The final point i'll make about the falklands is that it allegedly discredited the KGB in the eyes of the politiburo for their bad call on the reaction to the falklands invasion, which in my opinion is a magnificient occurance, confusion to your enemies and all that.

[Furunculus]

Hear Hear! The thing is with Thatcher, is she and Reagan decided that Trickle-down economics actually worked, somehow. They are, what we call in conversation, idiots.

And yet Britain became so much wealthier, including a vast number of the working-class who became middle-class as a result of her policies............

[HoreTore]

And your disparaging remarks about the falklands totally belie the fact that it was sovereign british territory, the inhabitants of which wished to remain british.

But still... Who cares?

Who honestly care about some barren, irrelevant island on the other side of the world? Oh right, british right-wingers do...

[Furunculus]

what, british people cared what happened to other british people, with regards foreign military invasion? AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111111111111111111111111ONEONEONEONEONEONEONE

aside from the obvious that even the left-wing must have cared just a little about about what happened to other brits given the election boost that thatcher allegedly received from her foreign military 'adventure'.

can you imagine that, people giving a damn about something other than your glorious world government, how irrational!

[tibilicus]

What was bad about her handling of NI?

What was bad about her handling of foreign policy? The two biggies were Cruise/Pershing and the Falklands?
And your disparaging remarks about the falklands totally belie the fact that it was sovereign british territory, the inhabitants of which wished to remain british. The belgrano was an enemy warship, which threatened a very precarious military mission to recover british territory and subjects from an invading aggressor, I would have sunk the ship, whats your problem with it?
The final point i'll make about the falklands is that it allegedly discredited the KGB in the eyes of the politiburo for their bad call on the reaction to the falklands invasion, which in my opinion is a magnificient occurance, confusion to your enemies and all that.


The Belgrano was out of the military exclusion zone and had no intention of engaging any British forces
as it was leaving. As far as I'm aware at least. Sinking the Belgrano, a military ship outside of the designated combat are was just as bad as a land force landing on Argentinian soil for example.

In regards to the handling of NI, the way in which Thatcher reinforced military outposts and increased checkpoints built up more barriers between the communities there. Indeed, ask most NI residence which PM actually did the most the resolve the Troubles and the answer will probably be Blair. As far as I'm aware Thatcher only increased Republican resentment as she was seen as an almost brutal leader in some respects.

In other foreign policy issues she gave the EU/EEC a hard time, now I'm not saying this was a bad thing nor do I wish to turn this into a Europe debate, but what Thatcher did serve in doing was creating a frosty relationship between us and the rest of Europe.

Also the Poll tax has to bee a major point as well. This poor piece of political engineering backfired drastically and I can't say I'm surprised. When you try and play politics like this things are bound to get nasty.

Despite all this in many respects I think Thatcher was a good leader in many ways. She not only turned a country round but also tried and successfully managed to keep Britain an economically competitive country, something Labour no doubt couldn't of achieved. Most of the resentment from miners ect is ridiculous IMO. A good government wouldn't possibly dream of trying to prop up a completely unprofitable industry or try and keep certain businesses nationalised which were simply running up debts.

Because there are so many good and bad points about Thatcher I have rather mixed feelings towards her. Whilst in many ways she was a savage and cold leader she was also a good leader and knowledgeable in her work. The fact that no other PM can stir up such feelings of admiration and hate in this country shows the mark she made on British politics, a permanent and significant one.

[Furunculus]

1. The Belgrano was out of the military exclusion zone and had no intention of engaging any British forces
as it was leaving. As far as I'm aware at least. Sinking the Belgrano, a military ship outside of the designated combat are was just as bad as a land force landing on Argentinian soil for example.

2. In regards to the handling of NI, the way in which Thatcher reinforced military outposts and increased checkpoints built up more barriers between the communities there. Indeed, ask most NI residence which PM actually did the most the resolve the Troubles and the answer will probably be Blair. As far as I'm aware Thatcher only increased Republican resentment as she was seen as an almost brutal leader in some respects.

3. In other foreign policy issues she gave the EU/EEC a hard time, now I'm not saying this was a bad thing nor do I wish to turn this into a Europe debate, but what Thatcher did serve in doing was creating a frosty relationship between us and the rest of Europe.

4. Also the Poll tax has to bee a major point as well. This poor piece of political engineering backfired drastically and I can't say I'm surprised. When you try and play politics like this things are bound to get nasty.

5. Despite all this in many respects I think Thatcher was a good leader in many ways. She not only turned a country round but also tried and successfully managed to keep Britain an economically competitive country, something Labour no doubt couldn't of achieved. Most of the resentment from miners ect is ridiculous IMO. A good government wouldn't possibly dream of trying to prop up a completely unprofitable industry or try and keep certain businesses nationalised which were simply running up debts.

6. Because there are so many good and bad points about Thatcher I have rather mixed feelings towards her. Whilst in many ways she was a savage and cold leader she was also a good leader and knowledgeable in her work. The fact that no other PM can stir up such feelings of admiration and hate in this country shows the mark she made on British politics, a permanent and significant one.

1. We were at war.............. We were fighting a war which most of the british establishment said was too risky to be worth fighting for such silly ideas as preserving the liberty of british citizens. So tough luck belgrano, you were a major warship with the possibility of knackering a carrier which would have meant we lost the war, so i will have a clear conscience as i wave tearfully while you sink. Incidentally, this was allegedly the same reason why the KGB spent the following ten years in the dog-house............. because they told the politiburo we couldn't win and shouldn't try either.

2. Well i have a differing opinion on this, in that i believe the tough stance taken in the eighties was precisely the reason why the IRA were forced to come to the peace table in the nineties, so bring on the checkpoints and dead ira people.

3. Maybe she believed that the UK should not be involved in a gradually federalising EU super-state, you know, much like the majority of the british populace.

4. No disagreement there, i have nothing against the poll-tax per-se, but it was unpopular and therefore a political disaster, and as a result a battle that shouldn't have been fought given the other unpopular policies she was enacting.

5. Totally agreed.

6. She was a useful leader, i.e she did what many tory gov'ts appear to find necessary; which is to clear up the mess left by labour governments.

[tibilicus]

She was a useful leader, i.e she did what many tory gov'ts appear to find necessary; which is to clear up the mess left by labour governments.


Ah, come on! Labours not that bad. If you ignore the fact that due to Labours debt you might have to work until your 70..

Of course the other alternative is another raise in income tax. I guess the one thing you have to say about Thatcher is that she wouldn't come up with the ridiculous idea of borrowing more money to get out of a recession..

[Furunculus]

i am faced with working till seventy, and it ain't that funny considering my non-wealthy parents were able to retire comfortably at 55. i realise this is largely a demographic problem, but i seriously object to labour making the situation worse by having Gordon Brown squatting over the ravening maw of the public-sector in order to engage in an epic bout of fiscal dysentery that spanned more than a decade!

that is fatuous, one way or another the accounts will have to be balanced, if that means raised taxes then so be it. I don't think the government should ever evacuate more than one third of GDP on public spending, but that doesn't mean i'm going to be a retard by holding an incoming government responsible for the unpleasant effects of fixing the previous governments profligacy. there lies the path of the thatcher hater, and i'm not that thick.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

From what I gather, the attack on the ARA General Belgrano was legitimate.

[InsaneApache]

Stop press:

In a war ships get sunk, aeroplanes get shot down, tanks get toasted and men die. The clue is in the name. War. :juggle2:

[Crazed Rabbit]

The Belgrano was out of the military exclusion zone and had no intention of engaging any British forces
as it was leaving. As far as I'm aware at least. Sinking the Belgrano, a military ship outside of the designated combat are was just as bad as a land force landing on Argentinian soil for example.

...

The Argentine cruiser General Belgrano was ordered to attack the British fleet the day before she was sunk at the start of the Falklands War, according to secret intelligence reports that are soon to be released.
...
Officials and ministers have always insisted that, far from heading home, the Belgrano was sailing west to a point outside the exclusion zone from which it was to attack.

Earlier this year the ship's captain, Hector Bonzo, admitted that the Belgrano's decision to sail away from the Task Force on the morning of 2 May was only a temporary manoeuvre.

"Our mission ... wasn't just to cruise around on patrol but to attack,'' Captain Bonzo said in a television interview in May. "When they gave us the authorisation to use our weapons, if necessary, we had to be prepared to attack. Our people were completely trained. I would say we were anxious to pull the trigger.''

In 1994 the Argentine government dropped its claim that the sinking of the Belgrano was a war crime, its defence ministry conceding that it was "a legal act of war''.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/belgrano-ordered-to-attack-british-ships-on-day-before-sinking-secret-report-reveals-577867.html

CR

[Furunculus]

In 1994 the Argentine government dropped its claim that the sinking of the Belgrano was a war crime, its defence ministry conceding that it was "a legal act of war''.

so whither the problem tbilicus?

if the reasoning of your own country is not good enough for you, what about the mewling admissions of the enemy, will that satisfy?

[Fragony]

lol@england http://lvb.net/item/7382

"We have standards in this country" sure you do love

disgusting control-sick woman, I would kick her over the border at dover.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I would've supported Thatcher attacking Argentina even if the Falklands didn't exist in the first place. Argentina was run by a despicable, murderous Junta. In between brutally torturing tens of thousands of young Argentine students, the Junta leaders attacked the Falklands to...well what for anyway. To indulge their hysterical nationalism? To 'fight communism' - as was the legitimization for their brutal regime? To rally the gullible masses?

I have no sympathy for them whatsoever. To their crimes, the dead of the war need to be added, not to Britain.


~-~-~-~<<o0o>>~-~-~-~

Now if only Thatcher would share my thoughts about Latin American junta leaders. Alas, her Baroness has always entertained a close friendship with Pinochet, and supported the other Latin juntas. So much for her moral compass. :wall:

Speaking of moral compass - maybe Thatcher could've devoted some more time to raising her children into upstanding citizens. Her son spend time in gaol for being an arms dealer in Africa (His business is cashing in his mother's reputation and his family's network. Just who are the people the Thatchers hang out with and identify themselves with? All of the world's petty, fascist dictators?). He has even been deemed an undesirable resident in Monaco. Which is an achievement of sorts, considering the pityful standard of foreign tax refugees in Monaco.
Thatcher's daughter for her part caused a stir recently by calling French mixed raced tennis player Tsonga a 'golliwog frog'.

Terrible bunch of chavs. Just like their mother.

[InsaneApache]

Terrible bunch of chavs. Just like their mother.

Indeed. What we're we thinking of electing someone who went to a grammar school, (which she got in on merit), when we should have elected someone like Blair who went to a public school,(because his dad was rich enough to pay for it).

Aye keep those working classes out of power. Bloody chavs. :furious3:

[Furunculus]

Now if only Thatcher would share my thoughts about Latin American junta leaders. Alas, her Baroness has always entertained a close friendship with Pinochet, and supported the other Latin juntas. So much for her moral compass. :wall:

Speaking of moral compass - maybe Thatcher could've devoted some more time to raising her children into upstanding citizens. Her son spend time in gaol for being an arms dealer in Africa (His business is cashing in his mother's reputation and his family's network. Just who are the people the Thatchers hang out with and identify themselves with? All of the world's petty, fascist dictators?). He has even been deemed an undesirable resident in Monaco. Which is an achievement of sorts, considering the pityful standard of foreign tax refugees in Monaco.
Thatcher's daughter for her part caused a stir recently by calling French mixed raced tennis player Tsonga a 'golliwog frog'.

Terrible bunch of chavs. Just like their mother.

Pinochet was a valuable ally in the falklands war.

I have NO issue with what Carol Thatcher said, in fact her treatment will be seen as useful in the future when it is called upon as evidence justifying the future gutting of the BBC.

[Idaho]

got some figures to back that up boyo?

how very divorced from reality.

Mind your manners small fry. It's common knowledge to anyone with a basic grounding in economics and history.

http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/tax-and-economy/the-never-ending-rise-of-public-spending-200902012861/print/

[Furunculus]

it doesn't matter how much you spend per-se, what matter is what proportion of GDP the Gov't elects to fritter away on public spending.

in 1997 public spending represented about 37% of GDP
in 2008 public spending represented about 43% of GDP
in 1979 i am willing to bet that it was closer to 43% than 37%

from your link:
http://ukpublicspending.co.uk/downchart_ukgs.php?year=1900_2010&units=p&title=Spending%20as%20percent%20of%20GDP

[Louis VI the Fat]

Aye keep those working classes out of power. I am all for empowerment of the working classes. Maggie is all for destroying their social fabric and their stake in society. Punish the working classes for being poor seems to have been her drive. Poll tax, reduced spending on education, etc.

Ironically, the Iron Maiden herself was a product of lower middle-class social climbing, whereas after her ascendency, she devoted her energy into decreasing this social mobility. There is a near perverse discrepancy in that.
'Attila the Hen' made the British elite more of a closed shop than the traditional upper class had done for half a century.

[Furunculus]

Punish the working classes for being poor seems to have been her drive. Poll tax, reduced spending on education, etc.

Ironically, the Iron Maiden herself was a product of lower middle-class social climbing, whereas after her ascendency, she devoted her energy into decreasing this social mobility. There is a near perverse discrepancy in that.


your first statement is made in an absolute vacuum that ignores the fact she was piecing back together a shattered economy, reduced public spending was an inevitability if britain was to get back on its feet.

............. which rather make the second statement baseless twaddle.

[InsaneApache]

I am all for empowerment of the working classes. Maggie is all for destroying their social fabric and their stake in society. Punish the working classes for being poor seems to have been her drive. Poll tax, reduced spending on education, etc.

Ironically, the Iron Maiden herself was a product of lower middle-class social climbing, whereas after her ascendency, she devoted her energy into decreasing this social mobility. There is a near perverse discrepancy in that.
'Attila the Hen' made the British elite more of a closed shop than the traditional upper class had done for half a century.

That's very true. Allowing the working classes to purchase their council houses had the direct effect of keeping them in their place.

My own sorry tale of moving upwards comes directly from this idiotic idea. If it wasn't for Hilda I'd still be living in 'social housing' as in dead dog estate in Manchester (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=361hqdT9yKY). Yes I hate the harriden for allowing me the social mobility so despised by our socialist overlords. They should burn the witch! :whip:

[Louis VI the Fat]

London School of Economics: (http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/pressAndInformationOffice/newsAndEvents/archives/2005/LSE_SuttonTrust_report.htm)
Disturbing finding from LSE study - social mobility in Britain lower than other advanced countries and declining

In a comparison of eight European and North American countries, Britain and the United States have the lowest social mobility. Social mobility in Britain has declined whereas in the US it is stable. Part of the reason for Britain's decline has been that the better off have benefited disproportionately from increased educational opportunity.

Researchers from the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) have compared the life chances of British children with those in other advanced countries for a study sponsored by the Sutton Trust, and the results are disturbing.

Jo Blanden, Paul Gregg and Steve Machin found that social mobility in Britain - the way in which someone's adult outcomes are related to their circumstances as a child - is lower than in Canada, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland. And while the gap in opportunities between the rich and poor is similar in Britain and the US, in the US it is at least static, while in Britain it is getting wider. A careful comparison reveals that the USA and Britain are at the bottom with the lowest social mobility. Norway has the greatest social mobility, followed by Denmark, Sweden and Finland. Germany is around the middle of the two extremes, and Canada was found to be much more mobile than the UK.

Comparing surveys of children born in the 1950s and the 1970s, the researchers went on to examine the reason for Britain's low, and declining, mobility. They found that it is in part due to the strong and increasing relationship between family income and educational attainment.

For these children, additional opportunities to stay in education at age 16 and age 18 disproportionately benefited those from better off backgrounds. For a more recent cohort born in the early 1980s the gap between those staying on in education at age 16 narrowed, but inequality of access to higher education has widened further: while the proportion of people from the poorest fifth of families obtaining a degree has increased from 6 per cent to 9 per cent, the graduation rates for the richest fifth have risen from 20 per cent to 47 per cent.

The researchers concluded: 'The strength of the relationship between educational attainment and family income, especially for access to higher education, is at the heart of Britain's low mobility culture and what sets us apart from other European and North American countries.'

Sir Peter Lampl, chairman of the Sutton Trust, said: 'These findings are truly shocking. The results show that social mobility in Britain is much lower than in other advanced countries and is declining - those from less privileged backgrounds are more likely to continue facing disadvantage into adulthood, and the affluent continue to benefit disproportionately from educational opportunities. I established the Sutton Trust to help address the issue, and to ensure that all young people, regardless of their background, have access to the most appropriate educational opportunities, right from early years care through to university.' Social mobility is highest in 'socialist' Scandinavia. Followed by semi-socialist continental Europe. Lowest in the US and the UK.

Social mobility in the UK has dropped in recent decades. Thatcher did not create upward mobility for the lower and middle classes, she decreased it. I am happy that you are the exception to the rule, IA.

[tibilicus]

so whither the problem tbilicus?

if the reasoning of your own country is not good enough for you, what about the mewling admissions of the enemy, will that satisfy?

I guess so, from my knowledge however I was always taught that the Belgrano had no intention of military combat.. Guess I never really chose to read up on that area due to the fact anything related to an island full of sheep doesn't remotely interesting.


I still have issues with the NI polices and my previous points raised however, as well as some domestic polices.. In fact pretty much throw that into anything towards the end of the Thatcher era, I think dear Maggie towards the end became a bit to obsessed with clinging onto power. It would be a fair point to say she didn't just want to keep the labour government out of power, she wanted to strangle and choke it to death..

[InsaneApache]

Well I guess I must be one of the lucky one's then. Although I know a lot of folks like me. Mind you I got a decent education at Grammar School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammar_school), again on merit, not on ability to pay. That's the main reason that social mobility has crashed these last thirty years or so.

[tibilicus]

Well I guess I must be one of the lucky one's then. Although I know a lot of folks like me. Mind you I got a decent education at Grammar School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammar_school), again on merit, not on ability to pay. That's the main reason that social mobility has crashed these last thirty years or so.


Agreed.

[Furunculus]

Well I guess I must be one of the lucky one's then. Although I know a lot of folks like me. Mind you I got a decent education at Grammar School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammar_school), again on merit, not on ability to pay. That's the main reason that social mobility has crashed these last thirty years or so.

agreed, i too am the product of grammar school, and sincerely wish that more people had the same opportunity.

[Tribesman]

So what did Thatcher give Britain ?
Lower social mobility , lower growth in GDP , increases in government subsidies to business , asset stripping to pay for all the crazy policies she introduced , prolonging the NI conflict and boosting the IRAs recruitment and fundraising which meant more British lives lost and more British taxpayers money wasted , a credit fueled economic stimulus which is now coming to fruition as the maggot filled rotten apple that it inevitably would be , the introduction of draconian measures which have turned britain into more of a police state , the alteration of the official secrets act which really screws the British public interest...oh yeah and supporting crzy murdering dictators for good measure .
It raises the question , apart from the Falklands (which were a result of her policies anyway) is there anything positive about the stupidwoman .
Oh and of course the Poll Tax , that scrwed both the taxpayers and the local governments big time .


I have NO issue with what Carol Thatcher said
Yeah , that speaks volumes about you

[Furunculus]

So what did Thatcher give Britain ?
1. Lower social mobility ,
2. lower growth in GDP ,
3. increases in government subsidies to business ,
4. asset stripping to pay for all the crazy policies she introduced ,
5. prolonging the NI conflict and boosting the IRAs recruitment and fundraising which meant more British lives lost and more British taxpayers money wasted ,
6. a credit fueled economic stimulus which is now coming to fruition as the maggot filled rotten apple that it inevitably would be ,
7. the introduction of draconian measures which have turned britain into more of a police state ,
8. the alteration of the official secrets act which really screws the British public interest...
9. oh yeah and supporting crzy murdering dictators for good measure .
10. the Falklands (which were a result of her policies anyway)
11. Oh and of course the Poll Tax , that scrwed both the taxpayers and the local governments big time .
12. Yeah , that speaks volumes about you

1. Was it thatcher that achieved that, or declining educational standards since the fifties?
2. Really, GDP per-capita has for the last 15 years at least been higher than france, and nominal GDP was higher despite have a smaller population which represents a big change from the seventies sick man of europe, so i'd love to see figures for that claim.
3. as opposed to endlessly subsiding state-owned industries....................... if there are less state owned industries are we really surprised that more private business might have got subsidies?
4. its called letting go of failing state owned businesses that the nation had no business owning in the first place.
5. we differ on this, and argued it elsewhere. i believe the firmer stance of earlier gov't brought about a situation where the IRA were prepared to negotiate, rather than keeping the conflict on a slow-burn in perpetuity.
6. most of britains internal problems stem from poor/loose banking regulation, which is not something that can be laid at thatchers door.
7. you might want to specify those, but either way i'm kind of doubtful they compare in magnitude to that accomplished by nu-labour.
8. does it really, and while unfortunate if true if this really among the biggest problems facing britain?
9. crazy murdering dictators who provided vital assistance in a war we might not otherwise have won?
10. how did thatcher cause the falklands, really? by withdrawing the south atlantic patrol ship, or was it more because of 20 years of FCO procrastinating on the issue of talks with argentina regarding the future status of the falklands?
11. no argument there, it was a poor fight to pick with all the enemies she had accumulated by that point.
12. it was a harmless statement made in private, i will cheer her on just to cause politically correct people to cringe, what a worthless non-issue.

[Ironside]

London School of Economics: (http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/pressAndInformationOffice/newsAndEvents/archives/2005/LSE_SuttonTrust_report.htm)Social mobility is highest in 'socialist' Scandinavia. Followed by semi-socialist continental Europe. Lowest in the US and the UK.

Social mobility in the UK has dropped in recent decades. Thatcher did not create upward mobility for the lower and middle classes, she decreased it. I am happy that you are the exception to the rule, IA.

A bit ot, but did you recently stumble upon this article in connection with that France is currrently seeming to get a "working poor" class (that hampers social mobility, or certainly not looking to be increasing it), particulary females? :book:

[Idaho]

That's very true. Allowing the working classes to purchase their council houses had the direct effect of keeping them in their place.

My own sorry tale of moving upwards comes directly from this idiotic idea. If it wasn't for Hilda I'd still be living in 'social housing' as in dead dog estate in Manchester (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=361hqdT9yKY). Yes I hate the harriden for allowing me the social mobility so despised by our socialist overlords. They should burn the witch! :whip:

Yeah but the sale of council houses was a one shot deal. It was very good for one generation, your generation, but subsequently the state of social housing in this country is desperate. Private landlords make huge profits while rents are high and tenants have barely any rights. There is a massive homelessness problem and working class people can't afford to buy.

[InsaneApache]

Maggie had more balls than all the Prime Ministers since, combined. :whip:

[InsaneApache]

Yeah but the sale of council houses was a one shot deal. It was very good for one generation, your generation, but subsequently the state of social housing in this country is desperate. Private landlords make huge profits while rents are high and tenants have barely any rights. There is a massive homelessness problem and working class people can't afford to buy.

Well there's a tale. You'd have thunk that after 12 years of a Labour government, someone might have got around to having a go at sorting it out? Except we all know why, don't we?

BTW Homelessness in the UK is one of my pet hates. It's shameful when we are such a rich country that people still sleep in the subway.A national disgrace. :shame:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Private landlords make huge profits while rents are high and tenants have barely any rights. There is a massive homelessness problem and working class people can't afford to buy.

If they are making huge profits, then new landlords would move into the marketplace and try to get some of that by providing more houses to rent. Unless, of course, regulations and other restrictions imposed by the government impede or prohibit the efficient building of new homes and apartments.


It's shameful when we are such a rich country that people still sleep in the subway.A national disgrace

There's always going to be a few people who aren't going to live in traditional homes. In the Seattle homeless population, there's some people who actually have homes, or relatives where they could stay, but they choose to live on the streets. Of course, that's not all of the homeless. But homelessness will never be fully done away with.

CR

[InsaneApache]

I'm sorry, I'm not being personal.* Have you ever been homeless?

*Ok I'm being personal. :embarassed:

[Che Roriniho]

And yet Britain became so much wealthier, including a vast number of the working-class who became middle-class as a result of her policies............

Yeh, and so many Ghettoised poor people. It's because of her stupid, stupid idea of selling council houses that we have such a problem with crime culture. The better off poor buyedd up houses on the better estates, forcing all the really poor together, which as history tells us time and time again, IS NOT A GOOD IDEA. Mmmkay?

[Crazed Rabbit]

I'm sorry, I'm not being personal.* Have you ever been homeless?

*Ok I'm being personal. :embarassed:

Oh, me? Nope. No worries.

CR

[InsaneApache]

Yeh, and so many Ghettoised poor people. It's because of her stupid, stupid idea of selling council houses that we have such a problem with crime culture. The better off poor buyedd up houses on the better estates, forcing all the really poor together, which as history tells us time and time again, IS NOT A GOOD IDEA. Mmmkay?

Tish.

[rory_20_uk]

Yeh, and so many Ghettoised poor people. It's because of her stupid, stupid idea of selling council houses that we have such a problem with crime culture. The better off poor buyedd up houses on the better estates, forcing all the really poor together, which as history tells us time and time again, IS NOT A GOOD IDEA. Mmmkay?

So, are you saying that the larger estates somehow worked?
The policy that council houses could be continued down the generations was a good idea?
Placing all poor together might not be a great idea. So, what is a good idea? Placed in an area, prices drop as it is less desirable.

~:smoking:

[Idaho]

If they are making huge profits, then new landlords would move into the marketplace and try to get some of that by providing more houses to rent. Unless, of course, regulations and other restrictions imposed by the government impede or prohibit the efficient building of new homes and apartments.

Limited housing stock old bean.

[InsaneApache]

Bollox

[Che Roriniho]

So, are you saying that the larger estates somehow worked?
The policy that council houses could be continued down the generations was a good idea?
Placing all poor together might not be a great idea. So, what is a good idea? Placed in an area, prices drop as it is less desirable.

~:smoking:

Yeh, they did work. You got assigned a house (obviously you paid for it, but it wasn't yours) that suited your needs, and you lived there. You were surrounded by people who were of a wide range of social standing (within lmits, obviously.). House prices had jack all to do with it, as there weren't houses to buy on the estates. Only when her Margesty came along and decided it would be a good idea to start flogging them off did the faecal matter hit the rotational cooling device. This happened because, as I said, the richer tennents obviously bought the houses on the nicest estates, leaving the poor with the shoddy ones, leading too... you guessed it: GHETTOS.

[Rhyfelwyr]

'Tis true, and a widely accepted fact as well. Mrs. Thatcher did not know the meaning of social responsibility. Next time someone feels like arguing about the problems of benefit culture, remember the woman you have to thank. :yes:

I'm glad you got out IA, but you were one of a small majority. The fact is that when the better off tenants left then the social problems shot up on the estates, leading to much greater inequality.

[rory_20_uk]

So, a large ghetto with lots of people in it became a smaller ghetto with less people in it? The really dyed in the wool ones who couldn't or wouldn't change?

Ooooh, TERRIBLE. Better yet, if all housing is owned by the state we can ensure that we all have the same... Hmm, that concept sounds somewhat familiar... You can polish a turd alll you like, it's still a turd.

I think that the social housing that is being made at the moment is far better. It mixes more than the old ones did (teachers / nurses / policemen are included), can be part bought and part rented and are often small developments.

~:smoking:

[Tribesman]

. Was it thatcher that achieved that, or declining educational standards since the fifties?

It was the changes in the tax burden which lead to declining social mobility , ass evidenced by those countries that appear bottom in the survey.


2. Really, GDP per-capita has for the last 15 years at least been higher than france, and nominal GDP was higher despite have a smaller population which represents a big change from the seventies sick man of europe, so i'd love to see figures for that claim.

So you would like figures that showed growth was bigger than before she took office , then declined under her, then went into negative growth then had a short rally with the credit fuelled boom before declining again and then going back into negative growth before coming back to a figure that was on par with before she got in office ?
Have you ever thought of looking them up ?

3. as opposed to endlessly subsiding state-owned industries....................... if there are less state owned industries are we really surprised that more private business might have got subsidies?

Errrr...she sold the idea that the industries were getting too much subsidy which was a burden to the taxpayer , the same industries got more in subsidies after they were sold than they did before which is more of a burden to the taxpayer:idea2:

4. its called letting go of failing state owned businesses that the nation had no business owning in the first place.

Selling valuable assets for a fraction of their real value is basic robbery.Its amazing how many foriegn state owned companies jumped at the chance at the British bargain basement sale.

5. we differ on this, and argued it elsewhere
Yes and you still havn't the faintest idea what you are on about.

6. most of britains internal problems stem from poor/loose banking regulation, which is not something that can be laid at thatchers door.

Errrr ...deregulation of the financial sector not at Thatchers door ?????:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
7. you might want to specify those, but either way i'm kind of doubtful they compare in magnitude to that accomplished by nu-labour.

All of Nu-labours(thatcherite) draconian laws are built on those introduced under thatcher.

8. does it really, and while unfortunate if true if this really among the biggest problems facing britain?

Changing fundamental safeguards for the accountabilty of the government and its agencies to the people is a bloody big problem .

9. crazy murdering dictators who provided vital assistance in a war we might not otherwise have won?
Crazy murdering dictators are crazy murdering dictators.

10. how did thatcher cause the falklands, really? by withdrawing the south atlantic patrol ship, or was it more because of 20 years of FCO procrastinating on the issue of talks with argentina regarding the future status of the falklands?

With her policy of screwing the islanders before the invasion.

12. it was a harmless statement made in private
Yeah right:dizzy2:

[Che Roriniho]

So, a large ghetto with lots of people in it became a smaller ghetto with less people in it? The really dyed in the wool ones who couldn't or wouldn't change?

Ooooh, TERRIBLE. Better yet, if all housing is owned by the state we can ensure that we all have the same... Hmm, that concept sounds somewhat familiar... You can polish a turd alll you like, it's still a turd.

I think that the social housing that is being made at the moment is far better. It mixes more than the old ones did (teachers / nurses / policemen are included), can be part bought and part rented and are often small developments.

~:smoking:

No, the ultra poor used to be spread about fairly evenly, which stopped when old Ball-Crusher decided to sell all of the nice houses, leaving the shitty houses for the ultra-poor. And seeing as crud houses tended to be on the same estates, this caused ghettos.

Basically, Thatcher is ultimately responsible for the deaths from ghetto culture in recent years, as it is her legacy which borne it.

[Pannonian]

1. Was it thatcher that achieved that, or declining educational standards since the fifties?

Perhaps I was the exception, but from a generation significantly later than the much-vaunted 50s, for my Maths revision, I practiced on exam papers from the 50s. I got 100%, or as close to it as makes no difference, on every one. And when the real exams came, they weren't much different either.

Maybe it might be different for the Humanities, but in the subject where I could directly compare the educational standards of the 50s and those of my generation, there was no difference.

[HoreTore]

Crazy murdering dictators are crazy murdering dictators.

No no, Tribesman. When the crazy murdering dictator is on our side, he/she/it becomes a crazy, murdering dictator we apologize for and helps in his crazy murders, as well as covering his behind. So you see, there's a very clear difference between the two :yes:

[Louis VI the Fat]

2. Really, GDP per-capita has for the last 15 years at least been higher than france, and nominal GDP was higher despite have a smaller population which represents a big change from the seventies sick man of europe, so i'd love to see figures for that claim.This is incorrect (http://www.nationmaster.com/time.php?stat=eco_gdp-economy-gdp&country=fr-france). Onwards from 1960, the UK's GDP has been lower than France's with the exception pf the period 1999-2007.(Blair) Currently, France's GDP is higher again. Italy will overtake the UK this year again as well - this is owing to Britain having remained outside of the Euro.

The UK's GDP per capita has been higher only for the interlude from 1999 to 2008 too.


Maggie had more balls than all the Prime Ministers since, combined.Aye. One thing seems certain. In ten years time, there will be no spirited debate discussing 30 years of John Major. ('John who?')



A bit ot, but did you recently stumble upon this article in connection with that France is currrently seeming to get a "working poor" class (that hampers social mobility, or certainly not looking to be increasing it), particulary females?I struggle somewhat with the phrasing of the question. Let me give two answers:
No, I stumbled upon my quoted article after googling 'social mobility Britian'. I knew what I was looking for, I just needed a reliable source.
Yes, France is facing problems of decreasing social mobility (I think, certainly an increase in the difference between the have's and have-not's), sluggish economic sectors, and working poor.
Women face a particular problem. Job mobility is low in France. Childbearing women tend to leave and return to the job market. These gaps in their career are difficult to overcome in a rigid job market. Women end up in low paid jobs or part-time jobs. Working poor indeed. Is this the mechanism that your article described?

[Scurvy]

Perhaps I was the exception, but from a generation significantly later than the much-vaunted 50s, for my Maths revision, I practiced on exam papers from the 50s. I got 100%, or as close to it as makes no difference, on every one. And when the real exams came, they weren't much different either.

Maybe it might be different for the Humanities, but in the subject where I could directly compare the educational standards of the 50s and those of my generation, there was no difference.

Difficult area. Educational standards haver been declining for the past 200 years or so, but according to the government, were achieving better in exams than ever before..... clearly a problem
(I did humanities, and looking at old papers, some look identical, and others have stuff I have never even heard of, or stuff that is understandably outdated)

I feel sorry for the government on this one, as if exam marks go down, they would get heavily criticised, but when kids achieve stuff in exams (they could just, y'know, work hard), its the exams getting easier, not improved teaching, cleverer children etc. - although i'm very suspicious of governemnt statistics on education for just that reason

As for Thatcher --> I find it very hard to judge her time in office objectively, and so don't try. Should maybe wait another 10 years before her 'legacy' can be evaluated properly.

[Furunculus]

This is incorrect (http://www.nationmaster.com/time.php?stat=eco_gdp-economy-gdp&country=fr-france). Onwards from 1960, the UK's GDP has been lower than France's with the exception pf the period 1999-2007.(Blair) Currently, France's GDP is higher again. Italy will overtake the UK this year again as well - this is owing to Britain having remained outside of the Euro.

The UK's GDP per capita has been higher only for the interlude from 1999 to 2008 too.


you ignore the critical factor about GDP per-capita, which reveals that France has a larger population, and yet still we went from the sick-man of europe to having a greater GDP than france, and you are aware that macro-economic policy takes anywhere between 4-8 years to kick in, so blair received an economy if tip-top health. in short the british economy grew massively in the 25 years after 1979, and that was directly attributable to thatchers reforms.

yes i am aware that the figures for nominal GDP have shifted back in Frances favour as a result of the hit taken by the UK banking sector, but so it should do all other things being equal given that france has the larger population.

[KukriKhan]

As for Thatcher --> I find it very hard to judge her time in office objectively, and so don't try. Should maybe wait another 10 years before her 'legacy' can be evaluated properly.

A couple things are clear

1) Wanna get the Yanks talking? Bring up guns.
2) Wanna get the Brits talking? Bring up Thatcher.

Works, every time. :laugh4:

[LittleGrizzly]

2) Wanna get the Brits talking? Bring up Thatcher.

lol. Vey true, especially in Wales and Scotland Thatcher is very much not liked, i have heard of people in the older generation organising parties for when she dies...

[Ironside]

I struggle somewhat with the phrasing of the question. Let me give two answers:
No, I stumbled upon my quoted article after googling 'social mobility Britian'. I knew what I was looking for, I just needed a reliable source.
Yes, France is facing problems of decreasing social mobility (I think, certainly an increase in the difference between the have's and have-not's), sluggish economic sectors, and working poor.
Women face a particular problem. Job mobility is low in France. Childbearing women tend to leave and return to the job market. These gaps in their career are difficult to overcome in a rigid job market. Women end up in low paid jobs or part-time jobs. Working poor indeed. Is this the mechanism that your article described?

Partially, the main thrust of the article was on the development of a working poor class in Europe, most clearly shown in France and that it gives a reduction of social mobility, showed mainly by that the US got working poor and less social mobility than Scandinavia for example. Thus something you don't want.

Why I asked is because I searched a bit more about the info from the newspaper article and stumbled upon the very same article a few days ago. So I was curious if there was any simular information in French press recently.

[rory_20_uk]

No, the ultra poor used to be spread about fairly evenly, which stopped when old Ball-Crusher decided to sell all of the nice houses, leaving the shitty houses for the ultra-poor. And seeing as crud houses tended to be on the same estates, this caused ghettos.

Basically, Thatcher is ultimately responsible for the deaths from ghetto culture in recent years, as it is her legacy which borne it.

The world is full of ghettos. Mayfair is a ghetto - a rich ghetto, and one that I'd love to live in although I'll never manage to afford to live there.

I'm sorry, but living in a bad house doesn't force you into crime / drugs / killings. These decisions are all taken by the individuals concerned. These areas were OK at some point. The middle class people didn't come and do drugs in the communal areas / graffiti the walls and ruin the place. Generally it is the people that live there that trash it. I imagine the attitude is it's not theirs so why look after it?

You can blame thatcher for killing off the grammer schools / reducing assisted places or for inadequately policing these areas but at the end of the day the people on the estates are in control of their own destiny. The schools are still free, the houses are still subsidised. No, they could all not become millionaires but they still have options that are not available in other parts of the world

Immigrants often come to these shores will far less and work hard to achieve - probably as they managed to get here they have the mindset to work hard.

And again, blaming someone who'se been out of office for over a decade is grasping at straws. Labour had ample time to sort this out if they'd wanted to.

~:smoking:

[Rhyfelwyr]

living in a bad house doesn't force you into crime / drugs / killings. These decisions are all taken by the individuals concerned. These areas were OK at some point. The middle class people didn't come and do drugs in the communal areas / graffiti the walls and ruin the place. Generally it is the people that live there that trash it. I imagine the attitude is it's not theirs so why look after it?

So is that just because middle class people are all by a remarkable coincidence better citizens than working class folk, or is it because of the underlying social problems?

I'm sick of the conservative excuse of 'its up to the individual'. Well, unless the trends in crime and poverty we have seen over the past few decades are the most incredible coincidence of all time, it is clearly not up to the individual. It is time the Thatcherites stopped telling everyone to take responsibility, and actually acknowledged their own spectacular failures, the hypocrisy in beyond belief.

[InsaneApache]

So if I decide to murder my wife, steal a car, rob a bank and throw a brick through someones window, your saying it's not my fault. What twaddle. Of course you're responsible for your actions.

Jesus wept.

[Rhyfelwyr]

So if I decide to murder my wife, steal a car, rob a bank and throw a brick through someones window, your saying it's not my fault. What twaddle. Of course you're responsible for your actions.

Jesus wept.

Of course they have to take the punishment and go to jail or whatever. But there are clearly factors working above the individual level if such crimes are occuring at a much higher rate under certain conditions.

At the government level, it is incredibly irresponsible to ignore that fact, and yet that is what the Thatcherites do.

[rory_20_uk]

So is that just because middle class people are all by a remarkable coincidence better citizens than working class folk, or is it because of the underlying social problems?

I'm sick of the conservative excuse of 'its up to the individual'. Well, unless the trends in crime and poverty we have seen over the past few decades are the most incredible coincidence of all time, it is clearly not up to the individual. It is time the Thatcherites stopped telling everyone to take responsibility, and actually acknowledged their own spectacular failures, the hypocrisy in beyond belief.

First off, I don't consider myself a Thatcherite.
Secondly, what are my spectacular failures? Is this personal to me as an individual, or the failures I have been "awarded" for being a Thatcherite?

So, as people can't take responsibility for themselves, are you advocating that poor people are a different type of person, a sort of humanoid cattle who need to be herded by the more able people who can be distinguished by being rich? What rights should they be left with? Or should all decisions be put to a board of "betters"?

I believe I'm right in saying that when Indians came over to the country they were as a group poor. Yet in my training there is roughly 30-40% from the Indian subcontinent. How on earth did these second / third generation immigrants get here when clearly they should still be in the ghettos? I'd hazard hard work, but that can't be right. The state must have done something to them, as they are clearly unable to succeed as they are shackled by circumstance.

~:smoking:

[Rhyfelwyr]

First off, I don't consider myself a Thatcherite.
Secondly, what are my spectacular failures? Is this personal to me as an individual, or the failures I have been "awarded" for being a Thatcherite?

Mrs. Thatcher


So, as people can't take responsibility for themselves, are you advocating that poor people are a different type of person, a sort of humanoid cattle who need to be herded by the more able people who can be distinguished by being rich? What rights should they be left with? Or should all decisions be put to a board of "betters"?

No, I'm saying socioeconomicblabla conditions have an undeniable impact on peoples fortunes in their lifetime. Poor people do not fare so well because they are born into a poverty cycle and benefit culture, things which owe much of their existence to the Iron Lady.

You seem to be suggesting that the only explanation for the lack of social mobility is that poor people are worse citizens than everyone else and that is why they never escape from poverty.


I believe I'm right in saying that when Indians came over to the country they were as a group poor. Yet in my training there is roughly 30-40% from the Indian subcontinent. How on earth did these second / third generation immigrants get here when clearly they should still be in the ghettos? I'd hazard hard work, but that can't be right. The state must have done something to them, as they are clearly unable to succeed as they are shackled by circumstance.

They came with a different attitude, formed over time from the day there were born. They were not born into the benefit culture, and they honestly believed they could make a better life in Britain. Some of them did, good for them.

So, why do native white British folk born into poverty not fare so well? Is it a coincidence that the milions of them are born lazier than their Indian counterparts?

At the government level you have to acknowledge these trends, and the Thatcherites ignore them.

[Idaho]

I'm sorry, but living in a bad house doesn't force you into crime / drugs / killings. These decisions are all taken by the individuals concerned. These areas were OK at some point. The middle class people didn't come and do drugs in the communal areas / graffiti the walls and ruin the place. Generally it is the people that live there that trash it. I imagine the attitude is it's not theirs so why look after it.


So if I decide to murder my wife, steal a car, rob a bank and throw a brick through someones window, your saying it's not my fault. What twaddle. Of course you're responsible for your actions.

Jesus wept.

This is the heart of the rightwing philosophy. I think there is a fundamental truth and a fundamental ignorance in it.

It is true that we make our own moral choices day by day and we are rightly judged individually on those choices.

And yet it is patently true that the likelyhood of crime and the existence of poverty matches whichever survey or research you choose to undertake.

It mirrors the nature nurture debate. There are individual tendancies and favourable environment conditions. It's harder to be successful if you are poor. It's easier to make money with money. That truth doesn't discount individual choices, nor does it rule out exceptions. It's a numbers game. Given starting position 1, the outcome is 10% more favourable than from starting position 2. You should know this Rory - you're a medic. You deal with like prognoses based on starting conditions. Some patients will beat the odds, and others will play along the percentages.

[KukriKhan]

His ability by training to triage (hopeless, let it be; fixable, but later; fixable, but only if we act now) might inform his worldview, but shouldn't be held against him, I think, any more than your experience with actuarial tables. And, after all, it's not a bad perception for poli's to adopt when facing crises either, is it?

Thatcher isn't dead yet, I guess (though London bookies likely still make a pound or two wagering when that might happen); but she's still held up as as an example of everything that is wrong with the UK? For how long can she be blamed, without challenge?

I ask, as a disinterested Yank, because our current Prez, when all else fails, frequently reminds us that "Bush" caused everything bad, and it's his job to clean up. Given your experience over there, can we over here expect a 2-year, 5-year, 10-year, or 30-year period of blaming the previous administration when things go pear-shaped, you think?

And, how long will it take for a social democracy to fix those conservative goofs?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

And, how long will it take for a social democracy to fix those conservative goofs?

Social democracy...fix...things?

Define fix. ~;)

[Tribesman]

you ignore the critical factor about GDP per-capita
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
From someone who ignores that real GDP growth was less under Thatcher than it was before her and that she had a habit of producing negative growth , and that under Thatcher Britain performed worse than France and when Blair got his inheritance of a "tip top economy" it was still worse than that of France .
It really appears that every factual indicator implies that your economic claims are nothing but fantasy

[Pannonian]

His ability by training to triage (hopeless, let it be; fixable, but later; fixable, but only if we act now) might inform his worldview, but shouldn't be held against him, I think, any more than your experience with actuarial tables. And, after all, it's not a bad perception for poli's to adopt when facing crises either, is it?

Thatcher isn't dead yet, I guess (though London bookies likely still make a pound or two wagering when that might happen); but she's still held up as as an example of everything that is wrong with the UK? For how long can she be blamed, without challenge?

I ask, as a disinterested Yank, because our current Prez, when all else fails, frequently reminds us that "Bush" caused everything bad, and it's his job to clean up. Given your experience over there, can we over here expect a 2-year, 5-year, 10-year, or 30-year period of blaming the previous administration when things go pear-shaped, you think?

And, how long will it take for a social democracy to fix those conservative goofs?
Britain has had a taste for "I'm all right Jack" politics, and doesn't particularly want to return to the old days. New Labour was a mixture of trying to add some flavour of social responsibility back to politics, but was hampered by the need to address the popularity of Thatcherite neo-liberalism, and the lack of money to do anything too wideranging. What Brown the chancellor identified as the most fundamental, most cost-effective way of redressing the issue of social mobility, was to fix the very early years. Hence Nu-Lab poured money into nursery schemes, up to primary school level, in the belief that, if children are given a solid enough grounding, they'll have the opportunity to build on it as adults. The problem with this in political terms is that the recipients of this investment won't grow up in time to let the investing government see the results. Since this investment began in the first half of the 2000s, we should start seeing their success or failure in 5-10 years time, by which time the Nu-Lab government that invested in them will be out of power.

[KukriKhan]

Britain has had a taste for "I'm all right Jack" politics, and doesn't particularly want to return to the old days. New Labour was a mixture of trying to add some flavour of social responsibility back to politics, but was hampered by the need to address the popularity of Thatcherite neo-liberalism, and the lack of money to do anything too wideranging. What Brown the chancellor identified as the most fundamental, most cost-effective way of redressing the issue of social mobility, was to fix the very early years. Hence Nu-Lab poured money into nursery schemes, up to primary school level, in the belief that, if children are given a solid enough grounding, they'll have the opportunity to build on it as adults. The problem with this in political terms is that the recipients of this investment won't grow up in time to let the investing government see the results. Since this investment began in the first half of the 2000s, we should start seeing their success or failure in 5-10 years time, by which time the Nu-Lab government that invested in them will be out of power.

Oh my. The very 21st century definition of Tragedy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy) then.

I appreciate the analysis. :bow:

I think we in the US started to go that way too, in the 60's and early 70's - abandoning the plan when results didn't seem to produce a "brave new noble savage", astute in the ways of the world, yet grounded in 'American' values. Definition of terms seems to have got us stuck, as our demonstrated values seem at odds with our rhetoric.

[rory_20_uk]

No, I'm saying socioeconomicblabla conditions have an undeniable impact on peoples fortunes in their lifetime. Poor people do not fare so well because they are born into a poverty cycle and benefit culture, things which owe much of their existence to the Iron Lady.

You seem to be suggesting that the only explanation for the lack of social mobility is that poor people are worse citizens than everyone else and that is why they never escape from poverty.

They came with a different attitude, formed over time from the day there were born. They were not born into the benefit culture, and they honestly believed they could make a better life in Britain. Some of them did, good for them.

So, why do native white British folk born into poverty not fare so well? Is it a coincidence that the milions of them are born lazier than their Indian counterparts?

At the government level you have to acknowledge these trends, and the Thatcherites ignore them.

Poor people are born into the poverty / benefit cycle. How was this different before Thatcher? Then they got their benefits from unreal jobs in industries that were all but failed.

One solution is to radically cut benefits and reduce all forms of tax on earnings.
Another is to further increase the money they get. One study showed that a single mother of 2 would have to earn just over £30k a year to get the same net money as benefits, once factoring in child minding. A friend of mine has to pay £1,000 a month for her two children. She's not loaded or unable to find a good deal.

I agree that the Indians have a much greater work ethic. They appreciate education and strive to succeed. There is no coincidence that they come from a place where education is not universal and there is almost no social support. Nothing makes one hungry for success than... hunger / starvation.

So, based on this are you advocating a massive drop in benefits / social support to make work pay? In essence was Thatcher too much of a lefty with free money for all?

Most entrepreneurs come from a poor background. Middle class children generally play it safe. Those at the bottom and ambitious usually fail and stay there, but some do succeed.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
From someone who ignores that real GDP growth was less under Thatcher than it was before her and that she had a habit of producing negative growth , and that under Thatcher Britain performed worse than France and when Blair got his inheritance of a "tip top economy" it was still worse than that of France .
It really appears that every factual indicator implies that your economic claims are nothing but fantasy

you know what, i'm just not seeing that:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/interactive/2008/oct/22/creditcrunch-recession

http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=phNtm3LmDZEO_Y5Udz-7uSw

must try harder.

[Tribesman]

you know what, i'm just not seeing that:

So Furunculus what part of the term "real GDP growth" is it that you don't understand ?:dizzy2:

[Idaho]

Britain has had a taste for "I'm all right Jack" politics, and doesn't particularly want to return to the old days. New Labour was a mixture of trying to add some flavour of social responsibility back to politics, but was hampered by the need to address the popularity of Thatcherite neo-liberalism, and the lack of money to do anything too wideranging. What Brown the chancellor identified as the most fundamental, most cost-effective way of redressing the issue of social mobility, was to fix the very early years. Hence Nu-Lab poured money into nursery schemes, up to primary school level, in the belief that, if children are given a solid enough grounding, they'll have the opportunity to build on it as adults. The problem with this in political terms is that the recipients of this investment won't grow up in time to let the investing government see the results. Since this investment began in the first half of the 2000s, we should start seeing their success or failure in 5-10 years time, by which time the Nu-Lab government that invested in them will be out of power.

IMO New Labour was a funny mix of selling centrist conservative economics to traditional left wing voters on the promise that New Labour would also sell progressive social policies to the traditional right.

[Pannonian]

IMO New Labour was a funny mix of selling centrist conservative economics to traditional left wing voters on the promise that New Labour would also sell progressive social policies to the traditional right.
There was a feeling that something was not quite right with society, and this was what New Labour played on, but also a recognition that Britain had acquired a taste for Thatcherite economics, and any party that wished to gain power would have to follow the same, or at least seem to - there is no need to sell it, just a need to provide it, and be seen to provide it. That aspect of Thatcherism is the new centre, and occupies an overwhelmingly large electoral ground. Votes are had on which set of politicians can manage this better, whether one follows the social engineering method or the crime & punishment method of fixing society, and just which set of politicians is the bigger bunch of crooks. All other issues are peripheral in comparison.

Despite what InsaneApache would have people believe, both Labour and the Conservatives systematically work on this - with differing emphases, but working the same issues for maximum electoral profit. The Lib Dems present a very different brand, which is probably more ideologically consistent, and theoretically more attractive. But they seek a different battleground to that prepared by Thatcher, and thus they fail.

[InsaneApache]

NM.

[Pannonian]

NM.
I think I can guess what this was, roughly, so I'll explain why I'm citing you as an example. You've started quite a few threads on Brown and his government, demonising him and painting him as the source of all evils. What I'd prefer to see is some more balanced, reasoned examination of his government, despite the fact that you'll be voting against him in the next election. I'm no fan of Thatcher, and I despise her mentality and approach, but I have to admit her influence on politics, and how she revolutionised the British electoral background, and why she did what she did. Similarly, try to look at why Labour set out the policies they did, and understand them from a historian's POV, even as you judge them from a voter's POV. At the very least, this approach leads to better and more interesting discussions than party political mudslinging.

[Che Roriniho]

Also, the thanked General Pinochet for 'Bringing Democracy to Chile'. LOL. WHAT?

I'm sorry, but someone who thinks that should not be let anywhere NEAR a country, let alone RULE one, hell that's almost on thesame level of hypocrisy as the creationalists.

(Please don't get onto creationalism, people, there's a thread for that, and we've already beaten you there. BACK TO THE SUBJECT)

Also, rory, what? You saying that where someone is brought up has no influence on their behaviour? Riiiiiight... OK. That's not incorrect at all...

[Furunculus]

So Furunculus what part of the term "real GDP growth" is it that you don't understand ?:dizzy2:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/i...unch-recession

http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?k...ZEO_Y5Udz-7uSw

looking at those figures i'm seeing GDP growth in the seventies that was plus and minus repeatedly, probably averaging 0.7% between peaks and troughs.

looking at the eighties i'm seeing a much slimmer trend mostly in the positive that probably averages around 0.7% GDP growth, quarter on quarter.

i see nothing to support your assertion that thatcher presided over lower GDP growth,

what exactly am i missing?

p.s. if you want to be exact about the guestimates i present above the second link has GDP growth figures from the ONS.

take your best shot.........................

[Rhyfelwyr]

Thatcher believed in evolution.

I'm not saying this means that everyone that believes in evolution is like Thatcher, but its worth pointing out...

[rory_20_uk]

Also, the thanked General Pinochet for 'Bringing Democracy to Chile'. LOL. WHAT?

Also, rory, what? You saying that where someone is brought up has no influence on their behaviour? Riiiiiight... OK. That's not incorrect at all...

Right Wing Dictators were Friends in the Cold War. All Western countries played this (Saddam's mates included the UK and the USA). Thatcher was no different.

Where people are brought up has an effect. So what? Can you alter this? Does mentioning it help? I don't believe I said it didn't make a difference... :inquisitive:

~:smoking:

[Rhyfelwyr]

Where people are brought up has an effect. So what? Can you alter this? Does mentioning it help? I don't believe I said it didn't make a difference... :inquisitive:

It is because Thatcher ignored these facts that we are left with many of the social problems we have today. We can't solve them by just telling everyone to be an individual and go make their fortune, part of the issue is that the environment they are brought up in breeds negative attitudes.

[rory_20_uk]

I can see the problem. What is the solution?

~:smoking:

[Tribesman]

i see nothing to support your assertion that thatcher presided over lower GDP growth,

what exactly am i missing?

You are missing something really simple, average real growth in GDP under thatcher was lower than before she took office , even if you view the years following her policies to allow for the impact over a longer term the average real growth is still lower . It is only in this century that average real growth has got back up to where it was during the "terrible" 1970s .
Fair enough some times she got a peak , some of those peaks were nearly as high as the peaks in the 70s (well 2% shy of the "bad times" peaks) but lower peaks plus several disasterous years and a whole pile of mediocre years push her average way down .
Work it out for yourself , it is why Real GDP growth under Thatcher was lower then before her ideological "brainstorm".

BTW you links don't seem to come up .

[Rhyfelwyr]

I can see the problem. What is the solution?

~:smoking:

Well it would have been helpful if she didn't magnify the problems in the first place. But now, the best thing to do is to invest in these poorer communities. And not half-heartedly, like when they build a community centre and then after a few years let it get delapidated. It has to be done properly if it is to have a meaningful effect.

[Furunculus]

You are missing something really simple, average real growth in GDP under thatcher was lower than before she took office , even if you view the years following her policies to allow for the impact over a longer term the average real growth is still lower . It is only in this century that average real growth has got back up to where it was during the "terrible" 1970s .
Fair enough some times she got a peak , some of those peaks were nearly as high as the peaks in the 70s (well 2% shy of the "bad times" peaks) but lower peaks plus several disasterous years and a whole pile of mediocre years push her average way down .
Work it out for yourself , it is why Real GDP growth under Thatcher was lower then before her ideological "brainstorm".

BTW you links don't seem to come up .

My apologies -

this graph requires that you click the next button underneath the image:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/interactive/2008/oct/22/creditcrunch-recession

and the google data set the graph is drawn from:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=phNtm3LmDZEO_Y5Udz-7uSw

looks like no change to me on average, just less boom-n-bust in the eighties.

[rory_20_uk]

Well it would have been helpful if she didn't magnify the problems in the first place. But now, the best thing to do is to invest in these poorer communities. And not half-heartedly, like when they build a community centre and then after a few years let it get dilapidated. It has to be done properly if it is to have a meaningful effect.

Typical. Those that work have to pay for those that don't to have nice places. No onus on the people that live in the area to do anything, or behave in a certain way. no intention to try to make them feel part of the community, to value what is being done or feel that they have invested in the project.

The incentive for working hard? Bugger all - as more money will come in either way.

If the council offered to lead the residents in a project that would be OK: the residents have to organise themselves and do the majority of the work for the centre. Maybe some will need to attend the FREE courses that are laid on to increase their skills and maybe have to work for an astonishing 8 hours a day to get somewhere!

Oh, investing means that there is a return. Generally the plans you have a more accurately describes as charity or burning money.

~:smoking:

[Tribesman]

looks like no change to me on average, just less boom-n-bust in the eighties.
I see the problem here , I have asked before a couple of times but you obviously missed it or can't understand . Can you see a word I have used in every post here about GDP? Do you understand what that word means when it is put in front of GDP ?can you understand why you are not even talking about the same measure?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Typical. Those that work have to pay for those that don't to have nice places. No onus on the people that live in the area to do anything, or behave in a certain way. no intention to try to make them feel part of the community, to value what is being done or feel that they have invested in the project.

The incentive for working hard? Bugger all - as more money will come in either way.

If the council offered to lead the residents in a project that would be OK: the residents have to organise themselves and do the majority of the work for the centre. Maybe some will need to attend the FREE courses that are laid on to increase their skills and maybe have to work for an astonishing 8 hours a day to get somewhere!

Oh, investing means that there is a return. Generally the plans you have a more accurately describes as charity or burning money.

~:smoking:

But the problem is that incentives are meaningless so long as the poor people do not think that they can achieve them, that's why changing their attitudes is so important.

You don't do that by just telling them to get on with it, because that approach clearly does not work. You have to actually give them something to build on, and having a decent community is something of a start. It gives people something to maintain and lets them take a bit of pride in themselves, so they can actually take advantage of any employment opportunities available.

Right now, the poverty issues run so deep its not surprising so many can't see a way out.

[Pannonian]

Typical. Those that work have to pay for those that don't to have nice places. No onus on the people that live in the area to do anything, or behave in a certain way. no intention to try to make them feel part of the community, to value what is being done or feel that they have invested in the project.

The incentive for working hard? Bugger all - as more money will come in either way.

If the council offered to lead the residents in a project that would be OK: the residents have to organise themselves and do the majority of the work for the centre. Maybe some will need to attend the FREE courses that are laid on to increase their skills and maybe have to work for an astonishing 8 hours a day to get somewhere!

Oh, investing means that there is a return. Generally the plans you have a more accurately describes as charity or burning money.

~:smoking:
What do you think of the Brownian idea of investing in creches, schemes for very young children, etc.? The reasoning being that this frees mothers to work, and substantially severs the link between pverty and access to education. Good idea that needs time for results to show, good idea but badly executed, fundamentally bad idea, or other?

[Marshal Murat]

Two points:
1. As I understand it, the gap between manager and worker pay in Sweden isn't much (my poli. sci. textbook); so would any upward tick in social mobility be directly related to increasing wealth and study or simply a reflection of the system as a whole?

2. I'm surprised that everyone is so vehement yet no one has brought up Hitler at all. Spectacular.

[Furunculus]

I see the problem here , I have asked before a couple of times but you obviously missed it or can't understand . Can you see a word I have used in every post here about GDP? Do you understand what that word means when it is put in front of GDP ?can you understand why you are not even talking about the same measure?

ah, maybe i have misread you, by average real growth in GDP you refer to net growth after inflation, something i haven't checked to see if my linked dataset accounts for.............?

[Pannonian]

2. I'm surprised that everyone is so vehement yet no one has brought up Hitler at all. Spectacular.
She's in the thread title.

[Furunculus]

ah, maybe i have misread you, by average real growth in GDP you refer to net growth after inflation, something i haven't checked to see if my linked dataset accounts for.............?

using the time series figures here:
http://pwt.econ.upenn.edu/php_site/pwt61_retrieve.php

i get an average Growth Rate of Real GDP per capita (Constant Prices: Chain series) for the period 1970-1981 inclusive of 1.48%, however the figure for the following twelve years averages out at 2.26%.

its not looking good for your assertion Tribesman, and you'll have to be the one to dig out some data this time...........


the UN data shows a similar trend:
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/snaama/resultsGDP.asp?Series=8&CCode=826&Year=1970&SLevel=0&Selection=quick

[Tribesman]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
For starters I never said per capita , though for some reason I recall somone having objecions to Britains per capita figures as a measure earlier in the topic .
But I do like the way you included two full years of Maggies economic disaster in the 80s with negative growth to lower the averge for the 70s . :oops:
So would you like to try again ? Then again perhaps now you realise that you was talking crap all along but just thought you would try it on in the hope that no one would notice you fiddling the figures .

[rory_20_uk]

But the problem is that incentives are meaningless so long as the poor people do not think that they can achieve them, that's why changing their attitudes is so important.

You don't do that by just telling them to get on with it, because that approach clearly does not work. You have to actually give them something to build on, and having a decent community is something of a start. It gives people something to maintain and lets them take a bit of pride in themselves, so they can actually take advantage of any employment opportunities available.

Right now, the poverty issues run so deep its not surprising so many can't see a way out.

I think that the state should provide assistance and leadership, but the impetus still needs to be the individuals.

Providing a decent community is expensive, especially if the locals don't take care of it. What then? rebuild another one Money isn't infinite.


What do you think of the Brownian idea of investing in creches, schemes for very young children, etc.? The reasoning being that this frees mothers to work, and substantially severs the link between poverty and access to education. Good idea that needs time for results to show, good idea but badly executed, fundamentally bad idea, or other?

I am guardedly in favour of some subsidy. Not free for all. Children should be a decision not taken lightly by parents.

I don't imagine that a few hours at a creche is going to magically improve their education (the other children will be from the same area, the people in charge aren't going to be great). Education already is free and compulsory! Results will not magically improve. Without engagement from the parents most initiatives aren't going to work for most.

Who taught me to read / write / maths? My father. After work in his evening.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
For starters I never said per capita , though for some reason I recall somone having objecions to Britains per capita figures as a measure earlier in the topic .
But I do like the way you included two full years of Maggies economic disaster in the 80s with negative growth to lower the averge for the 70s . :oops:
So would you like to try again ? Then again perhaps now you realise that you was talking crap all along but just thought you would try it on in the hope that no one would notice you fiddling the figures .

per capita figures are perfectly relevant, unless there was some major shift in population demographics during the period, and I had no objections to per-capita as i can recall.

it is totally relevant to include the first two years of the tory government under the pre-maggie comparisons, because macro-economic policy takes several years to kick in.
and if you are going to whinge about unfair comparisons you'll note that my time span for the maggie years includes the dot-com crash. it is a straight twelve years vs twelve years comparison.
finally, none of us are unfamiliar with the dates of the thatcher years, and i quite clearly stated the time period i was making the comparison over, so the idea that i am trying to wangle fiddled figures into the argument is stupid.

coming back to your insinuations, assertions, and allusions, you have made reference to a data-set which is so 'important' for judging the thatcher years and yet you neither provide figures nor is it possible to find figures for your claim. i have provided one graph, and two different data-sets that are all at odds with your claims, and you have nothing.

Tribesman, you need to put up or shut up.

[Tribesman]

i quite clearly stated the time period i was making the comparison over, so the idea that i am trying to wangle fiddled figures into the argument is stupid.

Yeah right , you posted figures to counter a point that are from different years to the point you were trying to counter .If that isn't trying to wrangle the figures then I don't know what is.:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:


Tribesman, you need to put up or shut up.
Not at all , since the data has already been linked on several occasions and it is your maths and methodolgy that is dodgy (when you finally grasped what real GDP growth means of course).:yes:

So its time for you to actully put up Furunculus , go to the OECD link from earlier , look up Britains Real GDP growth figures and come up with the actual average for the time periods I mentioned and compare them , for fun you can also on that site look at the French figures and see why another of your earlier claims was also bollox , if fact you can look up lots of european countries and see that if Britain was the sick man of europe in the 1970s then lots of other european countries must have been really so seriously sick that the coffin maker must have been measuring them up.
Though I must say I am slightly confused , after all you did link to one of the Guardians pieces on Thatchers legacy , did you not read any of the others ?

[Furunculus]

show figures tribesman.

when i did those averages that came out 1.5-1.6 percent for the seventies as compared to 2.0-2.5 percent for the eighties.

put up or shut up.

[Tribesman]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
wow I didn't think your maths was that bad , must be that declining education you have had since the 50s when errrr .....when they raised the school leaving age:dizzy2:
So please tell , when the for the average is 2.4 before Thatcher how on earth did you manage to get 1.5 ? At least you are in the field with your second figure as that is 2.1 though you range is too large . And to finish, for the third period I mentioned the figure is once again 2.4 .

So in summary Britain this century got back up to the real GDP growth figures it had in the "sick" 1970s after the decline in growth it had under Thatcher .
Hey that sounds like....
From someone who ignores that real GDP growth was less under Thatcher than it was before her and that she had a habit of producing negative growth , and that under Thatcher Britain performed worse than France and when Blair got his inheritance of a "tip top economy" it was still worse than that of France .

or even
You are missing something really simple, average real growth in GDP under thatcher was lower than before she took office , even if you view the years following her policies to allow for the impact over a longer term the average real growth is still lower . It is only in this century that average real growth has got back up to where it was during the "terrible" 1970s .

Then again even if someones maths was really terrible they should have been able to grasp that lower peaks combined with more and deeper troughs would not be very favourable for producing a higher average.:idea2:
That sounds like ...
Fair enough some times she got a peak , some of those peaks were nearly as high as the peaks in the 70s (well 2% shy of the "bad times" peaks) but lower peaks plus several disasterous years and a whole pile of mediocre years push her average way down