Did Thatcher create the Chav underclass?

[Hart-floot]

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

My point is, Thatcher was very good at subsidizing her core-vote and hitting people (hard) who were never likely to vote for her or be sympathetic to economic philosphy.

New Labour are just the same they subsidize their "demographics" at the expense of the rest (i.e. us!).

[Fungus]

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.

Thatcher increased the number of people going to higher education, owning homes and moving from the working class to middle class. They increased social mobility. When I was at uni I had friends whose parents were miners, factory workers etc. Under NL social mobility has decreased. Less working class people are moving 'up'. This is proven fact.

I don't believe that an underclass is a fixed item. In fact IMO it is the duty of governments to reduce the size of it. But nanny knows best nicey nicey control freak socialism just brings us all down to the same level rather than lifting up the underclass as per Mrs T. What you have to do is create opportunities and encourage people to do better. IMO it is a cultural thing, and the underclass are the lest likely to work hard at school, and to take on debt for higher education.

[Fungus]

My point is, Thatcher was very good at subsidizing her core-vote and hitting people (hard) who were never likely to vote for her or be sympathetic to economic philosphy.

New Labour are just the same they subsidize their "demographics" at the expense of the rest (i.e. us!).

Quite the opposite. She created a stable economy with high real employment i.e. not subsidised state jobs that parasitise off the rest of us. She created home owners. She increased access to education.

Unlike NL who have created huge numbers of fake jobs, presided over massive job losses in the private sector, contributed to a housing boom, and increased the cost of education massively.

[DodgyAgent]

My point is, Thatcher was very good at subsidizing her core-vote and hitting people (hard) who were never likely to vote for her or be sympathetic to economic philosphy.

New Labour are just the same they subsidize their "demographics" at the expense of the rest (i.e. us!).

You have made a very valid point, though not the one that you intended to make . Everyone acts in accordance with self interest. Business embraces this "truism" to the point that it works incredibly efficiently. The market is an environment that harnesses the dynamics of self interest incredibly well. Where society and institutions break down is when the dynamics of self interest are broken up. Public institutions are a classic example of this. Here the ingredient of self interest prevails yet the checks and balances that are part of the "market" concept do not apply, namely consumer choice, responsibility and accountability.
The only reason that this situation has been allowed to prevail is because we have been conned by the left into thinking that paying tax is somehow morally a good thing, when in reality the opposite is true. I have made this point on a number of occasions and neither snaw benn0 or the other lefties have been able to counter it.
With globalisation having the effect of exposing inefficiencies within the economies the debate about public services should move away from being a morality issue (middle class guilt, envy of the rich and aggrandisement of the ruling elite), this is because globalisation will allow capital, goods and labour to move freely around the world; we will no longer be able to "trap" tax revenue and spend it inefficiently. The debate should now be about how we apply self interest and market principles into the delivery of public services efficiently to the benefit of the people rather than for the benefit of the people in power.
As I have always said- educate everyone properly and no one will need to rely on the state for a living.
We have a moral duty to question how our tax is spent.

[Mordac]

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 was a certain union leader who really destroyed the mining villages. I have a mate from one of the mining areas (who was also extremely active in the Labour party - he was once the agent for a well known MP) and he was aware of the ridiculous amounts of money the miners were offered, both personally in redundancy payments and also regeneration payments to affected areas.
A certain union leader rejected the deal - and he never tried to negotiate another one, as any sane or rational union leader would have done. The govt bent over backwards to strike a deal with the NUM, but a certain union leader wouldn't have it. He wanted his little war, his moment of glory. He got it, while his members got f**ked.

[sasguru]

To answer the question originally posted:

No. Next ....

[Hart-floot]

.
With globalisation having the effect of exposing inefficiencies within the economies the debate about public services should move away from being a morality issue (middle class guilt, envy of the rich and aggrandisement of the ruling elite), this is because globalisation will allow capital, goods and labour to move freely around the world; we will no longer be able to "trap" tax revenue and spend it inefficiently. The debate should now be about how we apply self interest and market principles into the delivery of public services efficiently to the benefit of the people rather than for the benefit of the people in power.

.

Methinks you have too much faith or is it a religion in the role of markets and globalisation.

The current era of globaliation, 1979 (year Deng introduced mkt reforms in China) to now, just like the previous one did (1880's to 1914), is starting to un-ravel. We are now returning back to days (pre 1880's) where countries and people start to look after their own self interest, protect commerce and their access to commodities (US in Iraq, China in Sudan etc etc). I suspect your idealistic view will never happen

[Fungus]

It was a certain union leader who really destroyed the mining villages. I have a mate from one of the mining areas (who was also extremely active in the Labour party - he was once the agent for a well known MP) and he was aware of the ridiculous amounts of money the miners were offered, both personally in redundancy payments and also regeneration payments to affected areas.
A certain union leader rejected the deal - and he never tried to negotiate another one, as any sane or rational union leader would have done. The govt bent over backwards to strike a deal with the NUM, but a certain union leader wouldn't have it. He wanted his little war, his moment of glory. He got it, while his members got f**ked.

To expand on the above, Scargill used the miners to try and achieve political aims, and in effect take away control of the country from the elected government, and into the hands of a small self-interested and unelected group i.e the miners, or more accurately, the officals of the miners' unions. The government had no choice but to break the strangle hold of the unions, and move energy supply away from coal. The unions were trying to hold the country to ransom: pay us more or freeze. You can blame Scargill for that.

You also have to remember that the 70's and to a lesser extent the 80's were somewhat turbulent on a global scale, and not just in the UK. There was for example the oil crisis of 1973. However the UK was economically stuffed with "Made in Britain" a synonym for poor quality. That was due in part to the strength of the unions with restrictive practices rife. The union members may well have benefited, but the rest of us paid for it. There were also lots of inefficient public sector jobs. Nice for them, but the rest of us paid the price. The govs of the 70's, both Tory and Labour, were not exactly effectual, and of course The Grocer led us into the EU and gave away our fishing grounds destroying many jobs in the process.

Maybe some people such as Benny Boy are too young to remember.

[benn0]

Not too young to remember at all.

I also remember the despair of the 80s when many families were thrown on the scrapheap with no job, no future and no hope.

It created a disaffected, disillusioned population in many parts of Britain. People had to look for other ways to make a living. Unfortunately not always within the rules of the law of the land.

Meanwhile those who weren't affected carried on regardless. The gap between rich and poor grew and a generation of pissed off and aimless youth developed.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of thatcher's policies there is no escaping that her legacy still lives on and she has to shoulder some of the blame for the state of the nation today. You thatcher lovers cannot bask in the glory of her so called economic 'success', without accepting that she was reponsible for other less desirable consequences.

No doubt you all probably will though.

Still - The evil cow should be dead soon and we can all move on.

[Hart-floot]

Not too young to remember at all.

Still - The evil cow should be dead soon and we can all move on.

They'll be quite a few street parties on that day

What are the current odds for this year?