Margaret Thatcher: Thirty years on

[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

[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. 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. 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.

[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.

[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.

[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

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 then.

I appreciate the analysis.

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.

[Furunculus]

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/i...unch-recession

http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?k...ZEO_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 ?

[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 ?

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...