NedKelly

If it wasn't for Thatcher the UK would be a shadow of what it is now. She turned the country around after the stupid Labour party screwed up the economy and had to go begging to the IMF for a loan. The rate New Labour are trashing her legacy it looks like it will back to the IMF for another loan.

kiwichild

That was 10 years ago and was a rather complex issue that developed not due to internal policies directly but due to an inadequate response to the influences of external markets.

I've also heard of 10 yr old kids commiting suicide there due to the pressure of demands made on them by parents and teachers to reach high academic standing.

I never said Japan was strong on social policy. Ifact you example just goes to illustrate the need for strong social policy in favour of the people and not corporations and govt.

kiwichild

many of Thatcher's policies were unsustainable and infact by the end of her time in office the UK was actually spending simialr percentages of GDP on social benefits as it had before she began. She also was the culprit who farked up the NHS.

NedKelly

No one has to suffer these days. There are generous benifts paid out of the taxes of those who work for a living instead of sponging.

Compulsory super does work, and it is paid out of the profits of companies. Long term unemplyed get benefits paid out of the taxes of those who work for a living.

Go live in Africa then.

NedKelly

What many policies were unsustainable then.

As for the NHS, if you think Thatcher farked up look what Blair/Brown have done!

kiwichild

Thatcher introduced the quasi market system to the NHS whereby the quality of medical treatment became dependent on what specialists and treatments local hospitals could barter for.

She attempted to cutback social spending claiming it was the problem but the policies she introduced acheived nothing and became unsustainable in the long term as keeping them would result in a whole new underclass developing.

The real problem was the soaring cost of oil in the 70s and some inefficencies across the commercial sector. This was more to do with method rather than costs of labour.

Don't you recall the massive unemployment her policies brought? 3 million + unemployed in the early 80s. Her efforts were controversial, piecemeal, extreme and a patchup job. Most progress since the 80's came about during the late 80s-late 90s and were a combination of a strong currency, north sea oil, and more flexibility in govt responses to international pressures, as well a innovation by entreprenuers.

Blair has actually done quite well in the job in my opinion. Though he, like any leader, has made some judgments of error.

spalen

SHE TOOK MY PHECKUN MILK !

kiwichild

Benefits are not generous at all. They actually fall below the Henderson poverty line.

Maybe you and the rest who think like you should go live in Africa. No doubt inside a generation you will have turned it into a first world continent

Wealth and poverty must always be a relative measure. The poorest in Australia are as poor as those in Africa if you compare the former to the wealthiest sector of Australians.eg, many can't afford to pay rent, eat adequately/nutritionally, drive a car, pay bills on time, pay for educational and clothing costs or receive adequate healthcare. Go figure!

NedKelly

I am really not sure if you are a poor misguided soul who is blinded by left wing idealism or a troll.

NKSK version 2

As per usual with dogmatists, this is full of half truths.
1. Thatcher wasn't in power in all of the other western economies which were experiencing huge job losses in the 80s because of inefficiences.

Governments which continued to support inefficient industry in the 1980s experienced severe problems in the 90s and beyond (France, Germany and others with left leaning govts in the 80s).

Basic economic history will tell you that deindustrialisation and economic restructuring was not peculiar to the UK.

Her policies weren't "patch up jobs" at all. Thatcherite economic policies had two central themes:

1. That government should stick to governing and leave business to business men and women who tend to know better.
2. Left wing unions which priced employees out of the workplace through unfair wage demands, which were not tied to productivity gains, were a scourge.

..[/QUOTE]Thatcher introduced the quasi market system to the NHS whereby the quality of medical treatment became dependent on what specialists and treatments local hospitals could barter for...[/QUOTE]

2. This means nothing. What do you mean "barter" for? Are you talking about exchanging a hypodermic for a bandage or what?

...[/QUOTE]She attempted to cutback social spending claiming it was the problem but the policies she introduced acheived nothing and became unsustainable in the long term as keeping them would result in a whole new underclass developing. ...[/QUOTE]

3. This is vague rubbish. She certainly cut back on the welfare state because there were two many people claiming long term disability payments for a "bad back". (And they'd be seen later in the evening shifting furniture). What policies are you talking about which "achieved nothing"?

...[/QUOTE]The real problem was the soaring cost of oil in the 70s and some inefficencies across the commercial sector. This was more to do with method rather than costs of labour. ...[/QUOTE]

4. No, the soaring cost of oil exacerbated a trend of wage price spirals which was already in trend in the early 1960s. I don't believe that anyone could ever defend the low productivity per person which happened under union power. Let me just state some of the things which occurred in the mining industry in the UK in the 1970s.

1. Journey to work payments- so if you lived 100 miles away you received more money
2. Rigid job demarcation so if you asked an electrician to undo a screw he refused and you had to call out the carpenter.
3. Unions telling managers who the company could and could not employ (and going on strike if the management disagreed).
4. Refusal to work at another mine even if the current mine was losing millions of pounds.

[/QUOTE]Blair has actually done quite well in the job in my opinion. Though he, like any leader, has made some judgments of error [/QUOTE]

I agree

kiwichild

Actually I am in my final year of a social sciences degree, majoring in community studies. minoring in children and family studies.
In my course I had studied, social analysis, comparative social policy and politics. I also hold a diploma in mental health work.

That help give you a better picture?

kiwichild

Thatcher introduced the quasi market system to the NHS whereby the quality of medical treatment became dependent on what specialists and treatments local hospitals could barter for...[/QUOTE]

2. This means nothing. What do you mean "barter" for? Are you talking about exchanging a hypodermic for a bandage or what?

...[/QUOTE]She attempted to cutback social spending claiming it was the problem but the policies she introduced acheived nothing and became unsustainable in the long term as keeping them would result in a whole new underclass developing. ...[/QUOTE]

3. This is vague rubbish. She certainly cut back on the welfare state because there were two many people claiming long term disability payments for a "bad back". (And they'd be seen later in the evening shifting furniture). What policies are you talking about which "achieved nothing"?

...[/QUOTE]The real problem was the soaring cost of oil in the 70s and some inefficencies across the commercial sector. This was more to do with method rather than costs of labour. ...[/QUOTE]

4. No, the soaring cost of oil exacerbated a trend of wage price spirals which was already in trend in the early 1960s. I don't believe that anyone could ever defend the low productivity per person which happened under union power. Let me just state some of the things which occurred in the mining industry in the UK in the 1970s.

1. Journey to work payments- so if you lived 100 miles away you received more money
2. Rigid job demarcation so if you asked an electrician to undo a screw he refused and you had to call out the carpenter.
3. Unions telling managers who the company could and could not employ (and going on strike if the management disagreed).
4. Refusal to work at another mine even if the current mine was losing millions of pounds.

[/QUOTE]Blair has actually done quite well in the job in my opinion. Though he, like any leader, has made some judgments of error [/QUOTE]

I agree[/QUOTE]

The information I presented came from a university text in comparative social policy that traced the roots and development of the economic and social conditions and policies of several countries up to the mid 90s.

If you want the details of the text let me know and I will post it.

NKSK version 2

2. This means nothing. What do you mean "barter" for? Are you talking about exchanging a hypodermic for a bandage or what?

...[/QUOTE]She attempted to cutback social spending claiming it was the problem but the policies she introduced acheived nothing and became unsustainable in the long term as keeping them would result in a whole new underclass developing. ...[/QUOTE]

3. This is vague rubbish. She certainly cut back on the welfare state because there were two many people claiming long term disability payments for a "bad back". (And they'd be seen later in the evening shifting furniture). What policies are you talking about which "achieved nothing"?

...[/QUOTE]The real problem was the soaring cost of oil in the 70s and some inefficencies across the commercial sector. This was more to do with method rather than costs of labour. ...[/QUOTE]

4. No, the soaring cost of oil exacerbated a trend of wage price spirals which was already in trend in the early 1960s. I don't believe that anyone could ever defend the low productivity per person which happened under union power. Let me just state some of the things which occurred in the mining industry in the UK in the 1970s.

1. Journey to work payments- so if you lived 100 miles away you received more money
2. Rigid job demarcation so if you asked an electrician to undo a screw he refused and you had to call out the carpenter.
3. Unions telling managers who the company could and could not employ (and going on strike if the management disagreed).
4. Refusal to work at another mine even if the current mine was losing millions of pounds.

[/QUOTE]Blair has actually done quite well in the job in my opinion. Though he, like any leader, has made some judgments of error [/QUOTE]

I agree[/QUOTE]

The information I presented came from a university text in comparative social policy that traced the roots and development of the economic and social conditions and policies of several countries up to the mid 90s.

If you want the details of the text let me know and I will post it.[/QUOTE]


Don't paste the text details just tell me what you mean. Quoting left wing text sources is a get out.

kiwichild

She attempted to cutback social spending claiming it was the problem but the policies she introduced acheived nothing and became unsustainable in the long term as keeping them would result in a whole new underclass developing. ...[/QUOTE]

3. This is vague rubbish. She certainly cut back on the welfare state because there were two many people claiming long term disability payments for a "bad back". (And they'd be seen later in the evening shifting furniture). What policies are you talking about which "achieved nothing"?

...[/QUOTE]The real problem was the soaring cost of oil in the 70s and some inefficencies across the commercial sector. This was more to do with method rather than costs of labour. ...[/QUOTE]

4. No, the soaring cost of oil exacerbated a trend of wage price spirals which was already in trend in the early 1960s. I don't believe that anyone could ever defend the low productivity per person which happened under union power. Let me just state some of the things which occurred in the mining industry in the UK in the 1970s.

1. Journey to work payments- so if you lived 100 miles away you received more money
2. Rigid job demarcation so if you asked an electrician to undo a screw he refused and you had to call out the carpenter.
3. Unions telling managers who the company could and could not employ (and going on strike if the management disagreed).
4. Refusal to work at another mine even if the current mine was losing millions of pounds.

[/QUOTE]Blair has actually done quite well in the job in my opinion. Though he, like any leader, has made some judgments of error [/QUOTE]

I agree[/QUOTE]

The information I presented came from a university text in comparative social policy that traced the roots and development of the economic and social conditions and policies of several countries up to the mid 90s.

If you want the details of the text let me know and I will post it.[/QUOTE]


Don't paste the text details just tell me what you mean. Quoting left wing text sources is a get out.[/QUOTE]

Firstly it is a text from well respected social science researchers. Claiming it is left wing is just an attempt to undermine it.

Unfortunately I really don't have the time or inclination to go into an analysis of the Thatcher years in detail.

Perhaps you might try doing a bit of reading on the subject (from reputable sources) in your spare time.

Quoting sources is not a 'get out' as you put it. It is infact a convention of academia used to establish an argument. It's called provinding evidence, as opposed to merely expressing an opinion.

NKSK version 2

Yes, providing evidence...something which your arguments seem to lack.

Real academic research - as I'm sure you'll know - tests an idea using a full range of primary and secondary evidence. The secondary ecidence must be balanced in its entirety.

So:
1. How did you get your primary evidence? and

2. Did you read a counter-argument to the quasi-Marxist stuff you seem to be quoting? i.e. Thatcher's memoirs, work by Milton Friedman perhaps?