Did Thatcher create the Chav underclass?

[DodgyAgent]

The underclass exist whether there is a welfare system or not. You just have to take a look at the in the history of Britain pre-welfare state and see may of the same problems, plus a few more even less desirable ones.

On one hand too much welfare state (Which I'd generally agree that wee have too much of here) and you end up with a dependence culture, which get's propogated every generation. On the other hand when you take it away you end up with some sort of Dickensian nightmare from Victorian London. I've seen a few third world countries that have no safety net and they seemed pretty grim to me.

The problem with Thatcher was that she empowered some people, for the better, but in the process destroyed a fair bit. Coming from one of the places which she destroyed (A mining village) I'll never be able to forgive her, but I can see some of the benefits from her years now. Just hard to relate that in a village that was once solidly working class and decent, now turned into breeding ground for unemployment, teenage mums and junkies all cause she wanted to destroy the unions but had no thought for some of the consequences of that process 20 years after.

It's easy to critisise these people but I'd be interested to see how most people would turn out given the same set of circumstances.

It is interesting how as soon as things go wrong or there are any social problems the default is to blame those who are affluent rather than those who are actually responsible for improving the lives of the underclass. The first point that I will make is that Thatcher did not destroy the miners, they desytoyed themselves thanks to socialism.
We as a society could no longer afford to subsidise a mining Industry that was run at huge expense entirely for the benefit of the people who worked in it. Why on Earth does anyone think that there is any moral cause for allowing this to happen? Thatcher merely courageously put an end to this deeply unfair and evil state of affairs.
The point that I am making is that given the vast amoubts of money that are poured in to welfare why is it we still have an underclass? the reason is simply that no one really takes responsibility for how money is spent. So instead for example of spending the money wisely on education the state decides that money is better spent on paying people not to work. This is the worst thing that you can do to a person because not only does it put a stop to people ever working (they lose confidence they feel as if they have been consigned to the dustbin and they have no concept of personal responsibility) again but it is a huge waste of money. So why do we do this?

1. Because by creating awelfare dependency it ensures that rhose responsible for administering tax are kept in power
2. Because the rest of us feel so guilty about these social problems we quite happily vote for left wing governments in the vain hope that the underclass will be kept in their place and out of their way.

So when people piously condemn tories of being selfish because they express a dislike of paying taxes, it is infact they who are the cowards and the selfish. The left wing middle classes are the greatest contributors to the problems of social deprivation. They see tax simply as a means of admonishing their guilt and keeping the underclass out of their areas away from their schools and off their streets.

If people really cared they would demand that tax money is a lot better spent than it is. If it is not going to be spent wisely then no one has any justification for raising it in the first place.

[wendigo100]

There is no point arguing about whose fault it is.

There always has been, and always will be, an underclass.

It is the nature of any population.

[threaded]

It is the nature of any population.

I am not too sure that is true. Generally the underclass has been defined as that section of society that does tasks that are considered to be morally reprehensible, yet if what they do becomes socially acceptable then they can rise up, alternatively if things people do become socially unacceptable then they can become part of the underclass.

A good example is Roman Gladiators. Originally these were considered the lowest of the low and one would never invite them to ones home. Later periods though saw gladiators earning vast sums of money, rich women personally keeping groups of particularly ugly ones for pleasure, and even emperors inviting them to state banquets.

Another example: ask yourself which is the worse crime, "kidnapping" or "slave trading"? Most would say slave trading, but the etymology of the word kidnapping is slave traders would steal (nab) young children (kids) from the street to be sold on as slaves.

Yet another that you can work out for yourselves: users of hard drugs.

[benn0]

You have proved that you are no supporter of the Tories but can I ask, in all seriousness, why you support NL when all indicators prove that they are ruining the country

I don't support New Labour. I've stated many times on here that I don't agree with a lot of what they are doing. All I've ever said is that the conservatives are far from perfect as well. In my opinion they are far far worse than labour. Thatcher was the extreme case and we are now seeing the outcome of her policies of greed from the early 80s.

As I said, you reap what you sow.

[DodgyAgent]

I. Thatcher was the extreme case and we are now seeing the outcome of her policies of greed from the early 80s.

As I said, you reap what you sow.

You are absolutly right we have a healthy economy from which your mates can plunder and squander ill gotten tax gains.

[The Lone Gunman]

I don't support New Labour. I've stated many times on here that I don't agree with a lot of what they are doing. All I've ever said is that the conservatives are far from perfect as well. In my opinion they are far far worse than labour. Thatcher was the extreme case and we are now seeing the outcome of her policies of greed from the early 80s.

As I said, you reap what you sow.

Thatcherism is not the reason it is all going wrong. Thatcherism is the reason it has taken so long to go wrong. She oversaw the building of a very strong Nation and economy. So strong it has taken NL 9 years to cripple it.
Certainly she was not without fault, but nobody can be expected to get it right all the time.
She did oversee the destruction of the manufacturing industry in the UK, but someone had to make the hard decisions as we were dead in the water at the time.
She also suffered from that well known politicians ailment of not knowing when to quit. She ran out of ideas but kept implementing stuff just to show she was in charge. Our Tone hit that particular barrier shortly after putting the BOE in charge of interest rates.
Change for the sake of change is a recipe for disaster but politicos have to be seen to be doing something so they meddle.

You cant blame Thatcher for todays problems. The economy NL inherited was regarded as one of the strongest in the world and although there were unemployed there was no "chav" attitude to be seen.
The only reason NL got in was due to a master stroke of populism and various Tories shooting the team in the foot with sleeze.

[wendigo100]

I am not too sure that is true. Generally the underclass has been defined as that section of society that does tasks that are considered to be morally reprehensible, yet if what they do becomes socially acceptable then they can rise up, alternatively if things people do become socially unacceptable then they can become part of the underclass.

But there is always an underclass, even if a few people are moving in and out of it.

It's like New Labour defining poverty as the 20% with the lowest income, then saying they will eradicate poverty.

[Hart-floot]

We as a society could no longer afford to subsidise a mining Industry that was run at huge expense entirely for the benefit of the people who worked in it. Why on Earth does anyone think that there is any moral cause for allowing this to happen? Thatcher merely courageously put an end to this deeply unfair and evil state of affairs.

Perhaps we should have done the same to the arable farmers in this country!
But of course, Thatcher did nothing cos they all voted Tory!

[DodgyAgent]

Perhaps we should have done the same to the arable farmers in this country!
But of course, Thatcher did nothing cos they all voted Tory!

They were not exactly the economy to its knees were they?

[threaded]

Perhaps we should have done the same to the arable farmers in this country!
But of course, Thatcher did nothing cos they all voted Tory!

Erm, we did.

Many asked why they did not receive compensation like the miners did and were told it was because they could sell their farms. Who to and anyways many do not 'own' the farms they being rented or mortgaged.