Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    John Major ages
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nixonsjellybeans)
    Not to mention branding Mandela a terrorist...
    Yes, she called Mandela a terrorist- and yes, the acts he advocated were terrorist in that they caused terror. But she was not a supporter of racism; she understood that South Africa was making slow but sure reforms towards equality, and that as an emrging economic power, South Africa needn't be totally isolated: in this sense, she had a great deal more foresight than any other Commonwealth leader.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    I totally agree with your post.

    But what is the way that hasn't been resorted too?
    It depends on the case that you might demonstrate. As a thought exercise, see if you can come up with a real example of someone in actual absolute poverty in the UK, and the suggestions that have not yet been resorted to might then be examined.

    Without any real actual examples, I won't know whether or not a particular means to alleviate the situation has been resorted to or not.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    It depends on the case that you might demonstrate. As a thought exercise, see if you can come up with a real example of someone in actual absolute poverty in the UK, and the suggestions that have not yet been resorted to might then be examined.

    Without any real actual examples, I won't know whether or not a particular means to alleviate the situation has been resorted to or not.
    Oh all right

    what about a long-term homeless person*

    * I don't know how that happens with the government/LAs legal obligation to provide shelter for the homeless and the all the benefits
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    The irony of relative poverty is easily demonstrated.

    It is defined as people receiving less than the median income.

    Aceept as the basis of the argument that the population of the UK doesn't significantly change when doing your comparison.

    At a certain median income, those below the line will be defined as being in relative poverty and those above it won't.

    Raise the median income so that on average, more people will be better off as on average they will have higher wages than they did before, more will be below the median line and so more will be defined as being in 'poverty'.

    Lower the median income so that on average, more will be worse off, less people will be below the median line for the same reasoning as above and consequently less will be defined as being in 'poverty'

    Relative poverty is a modern invention designed to try to evade the awkward fact that a country like the UK essentially has no poverty (or, in the odd case which might be demonstrated, has a way of relieving it which has not been resorted to).

    Relative poverty can conveniently can never be eradicated, so will always brought up by the left and the indigent in society when people claim for themselves or some special interest group that they are in 'poverty' so more benefits are required.
    I don't see the irony. A raised median income is pointless when so many live under it IF at the same time these people are increasingly worse off. And no poverty in the UK? That's just nonsense. It's obvious where you're coming from.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingMessi)
    It seems as though we have found more points on which to agree. My grandmother - at the time very much a member of the working class - frequently cites her debt to Thatcher; Thatcher's allowing people to buy council houses meant that she was able to both buy and sell her own, allowing her some upward mobility, economically and, as a result, socially. Without knowing a lot about it, I also believe that the reducing of the union's power was a good thing. From what I can glean they had far too much power, and that was hugely detrimental to the country.

    I think the biggest myth, having read a lot on her career today and yesterday, is that she 'hated the working classes'.

    I'll add the last part to the list!

    I guess it's interesting how those who benefited from Mrs T are more likely to put to personal talents while those who suffered are more likely to blame her
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Except she wasn't Prime Minister in 1991. Any part of 1991.
    But if the figures are from early in the year, then early 1991 is probably a more sensible point to mark as the end of Thatcher than early 1990.

    And as I said, the ONS contradicts your figures.
    The site I linked uses ONS statistics. The figures you've given are (I assume, looking at recent numbers) using a very different mode of calculation.

    The figures I just gave you a link to. 44 quarters under Thatcher of an accumulated 30.7% growth, compared with 26.5% for the 44 quarters preceding her.
    Thatcher had 46 quarters, 1979 Q3 to 1990 Q4.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    Yes that makes it so much better, it's only "relative" poverty.
    Well yes, it is only relative poverty, which going by the definition of 60% of median income, is currently just shy of £16,000 a year, which is a tidy sum for someone supposedly living in 'poverty'.

    (Original post by amineamine2)
    The poor getting richer? Under Thatcher? You must be trolling. Visit the north.
    How about you visit the ONS website and read some actual real facts and statistics? The fact that the poor got richer is an indisputable fact, no matter how much you give some cliche 'visit the north' answer.

    (Original post by amineamine2)
    Widening class gaps is very much an issue! Where do you think crime comes from? You have no clue about how human psychology works.
    Right, and you're an expert? :rolleyes:

    (Original post by amineamine2)
    Stop putting words in my mouth before writing "shock horror", you keep doing it and it doesn't get less annoying for each time.
    Not as annoying as you claiming to have conceded the point while continuing to sneakily imply some sort of negativity over the fact that she sunk the Belgrano, as if effectively waging war during a war is itself somehow something to be ashamed of.

    (Original post by amineamine2)
    She supported Saddam. And Pinochet. If that doesn't say anything about her personality then what will?!
    She didn't support Saddam, she supported his war against Iran, along with almost every other country in the world. She was also one of the most vocal supporters of the UN mission to oust him in 1991, something you've conveniently ignored.
    Which pretty much justs leave Pinochet. Well when you're Prime Minister, let's see how you handle global diplomacy without making any deals with the devil. I bet you're going to be an absolutel angel, aren't you?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    I don't see the irony. A raised median income is pointless when so many live under it IF at the same time these people are increasingly worse off. And no poverty in the UK? That's just nonsense. It's obvious where you're coming from.
    Maths not your strong point?

    A raised median income means exactly that, people are in general better off, not worse. You should look up the definition of median in the dictionary.

    Or try reading this article from Jan 2013 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/f...a-holiday.html

    Particularly:

    Official figures in the ONS report on poverty and social exclusion said 36.6pc of the UK population - 23m people - feel unable to meet unexpected financial expenses, up 10 percentage points from 26.6pc pre-recession.

    While the proportion of Britons considered to be at risk of poverty has fallen from 18.7pc to 16.2pc in the course of the downturn, the ONS contends the drop is due to a fall in median income leading to a reduced poverty threshold.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    I'll add the last part to the list!

    I guess it's interesting how those who benefited from Mrs T are more likely to put to personal talents while those who suffered are more likely to blame her
    It is human nature to look to blame those who cause a reduction in your quality of life, and to venerate those who increase the quality of your life. However, I think that it is important that those who have received no direct benefit or harm as a result of an action try to evaluate that action objectively - or as objectively as possible. I read an excellent post yesterday saying that it is ludicrous to venerate - or 'deify' Mrs. Thatcher, but it is also ludicrous to see her as so reprehensible that her death warrants crass jokes and celebration.

    Without coming anywhere close to being a political expert, I prefer to see Margaret Thatcher as what she probably was - a determined and strong-willed politician attempting to do her best to alleviate the country's economic, social and military woes. If she believed that the unions were contributing to economic downturn, then it is only natural she should look to undermine them - it seems as though attempts at appeasement had only served to increase their avarice. Similarly, it would seem as though the fools who said that she 'hated homosexuals' never read enough history to recall or learn that she was in power when laws were passed to legalise homosexuality in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and voted for the legalisation of homosexuality prior to becoming Prime Minister.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    But if the figures are from early in the year, then early 1991 is probably a more sensible point to mark as the end of Thatcher than early 1990.
    Common sense would dictate that it's the end of 1991, since the economy grew overall in 1990.

    (Original post by anarchism101)
    The site I linked uses ONS statistics. The figures you've given are (I assume, looking at recent numbers) using a very different mode of calculation.



    Thatcher had 46 quarters, 1979 Q3 to 1990 Q4.
    Well 47 or 45, really, you either count Q2 1979 and Q4 1990 or you count neither.

    The figures I've given are quarterly GDP figures and their growth, as released by the ONS.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    Oh all right

    what about a long-term homeless person*

    * I don't know how that happens with the government/LAs legal obligation to provide shelter for the homeless and the all the benefits
    Many of the long term homeless have unique issues and complex problems, including but not limited to alcohol and drug dependency, or crime. Some have had a row with their family, and may have anger problems that prevent reconciliation.

    Obviously they weren't born onto the street, so you have to look at exactly what it was that led to them being homeless in the first place, and see if that could have been avoided.

    Regardless of what people say, homeless people are still entitled to claim benefits, despite having no fixed address.

    All this of course exists in a country which probably provides more support and assistance to those on low incomes, including the homeless than many other countries in the world.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tory88)
    Under Thatcher, the rich became richer, and the poor became richer. She answers this criticism better than I ever could in her last ever Commons Speech:

    She was an incredible woman!
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    Maths not your strong point?

    A raised median income means exactly that, people are in general better off, not worse. You should look up the definition of median in the dictionary.

    Or try reading this article from Jan 2013 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/f...a-holiday.html

    Particularly:
    Ehm I know what median is, thank you. Median is different to mean. More people can be better off, while the worse off still being poor. Do you not get that?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Well yes, it is only relative poverty, which going by the definition of 60% of median income, is currently just shy of £16,000 a year, which is a tidy sum for someone supposedly living in 'poverty'.



    How about you visit the ONS website and read some actual real facts and statistics? The fact that the poor got richer is an indisputable fact, no matter how much you give some cliche 'visit the north' answer.



    Right, and you're an expert? :rolleyes:



    Not as annoying as you claiming to have conceded the point while continuing to sneakily imply some sort of negativity over the fact that she sunk the Belgrano, as if effectively waging war during a war is itself somehow something to be ashamed of.



    She didn't support Saddam, she supported his war against Iran, along with almost every other country in the world. She was also one of the most vocal supporters of the UN mission to oust him in 1991, something you've conveniently ignored.
    Which pretty much justs leave Pinochet. Well when you're Prime Minister, let's see how you handle global diplomacy without making any deals with the devil. I bet you're going to be an absolutel angel, aren't you?
    She did support him. Selling weapons, as much weapons as possible, to a dictator is supporting! LOL, look up what support means. And that war was an unjust war to start with, it was a war where Saddam committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. He used chemical weapons against civilians in that war. Just because other nations supported Saddam doesn't make it right! ''But mum, Johnny is allowed, why can't I?''. Weak argument. And her later view make her a hypocrite, and quite a big one. It seems to be in true western agenda to support dictators and then boot them out to replace them with new ones. Nothing new there.
    And no, she supported Pinochet after she had left office, raising vocal support when he was arrested in the UK for crimes against humanity and demanded his release. Nothing to do with global diplomacy.
    I'm not an expert, and clearly neither are you. But most criminologists agree that the wider the social gaps, the more crime you've got. Compare the UK to Scandinavia.
    And no, the burden is on you to prove what you're saying is true. Don't expect me to try and prove you right.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    Ehm I know what median is, thank you. Median is different to mean. More people can be better off, while the worse off still being poor. Do you not get that?
    The difference between median and mean is irrelevant in this case. I have been using median and average interchangeably (as is acceptable common usage)

    Yes. I totally understand that a proportion of those positioned below the median line - particularly those near the bottom - before the median line rises may still (unsurprisingly) remain below the median line after the median line rises, it isn't rocket science we are discussing here :rolleyes:

    But what you don't get is that MORE people are considered in relative poverty when median incomes rise. Even when wages have risen across the board. If you don't get this, then you should study what happens to the amount of people in a population when the median line changes.

    You have 1000 people in a population. The median line for whatever condition is at 500. This means that 500 people are above the line and 500 are below. Now say the median line rises to 750. Come on genius, are there more people below the line or are there more people above it?

    As the article I previously posted shows, the proportion in relative poverty has dropped from 18.7% to 16.2%. I shouldn't have to state that this means that there are now LESS people in 'poverty' according to the relative poverty definition, but I will do, just for you. Do you think this is because people are earning more or are earning less on average (median figure)? - Don't worry, the answer is below.

    You should be cheering. The median wage has fallen and most of us are all out there earning less, with the consequent drops in living standards due to having less money, but so what. We can all cheer it as a victory for improving living standards because as proven by the statistics, less people are in 'poverty' as a result
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    The difference between median and mean is irrelevant in this case. I have been using median and average interchangeably (as is acceptable common usage in this case)

    Yes, I totally understand that a proportion of those positioned below the median line - particularly those near the bottom - before the median line rises may still (unsurprisingly) remain below the median line after the median line rises, it isn't rocket science we are discussing here :rolleyes:

    But what you don't get is that MORE people are considered in relative poverty when median incomes rise. Even though wages have risen across the board.

    Correspondingly, as the article I previously posted shows, the proportion in relative poverty has dropped from 18.7% to 16.2%

    You should be cheering. The median wage has fallen and most of us are all out there earning less, with the consequent drops in living standards due to having less money, but so what. We can all cheer it as a victory for improving living standards because as proven by the statistics, less people are in 'poverty'
    You clearly did not understand what I wrote. And it's not irrelevant as you seem to be confusing the two terms. Having a high median income does not mean the worse off become richer. You can have few very poor people and a larger amount of wealthier people and a smaller amount of multimillionaires. The median income will be higher, but the worse off will remain unaffected, or as in Thatcher's era, poorer. That is meant by the cliche phrase ''the rich get richer and the poor poorer''.
    ''''
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Regarding shutting down the industries, it was not her fault that Labour and tory governments did not invest in industry throughout the 50s 60s and 70s, nor is it her fault that the unions used what little subsidies they were getting to line their own pockets.

    British industry was doomed long before 1979, there is a reason why you still see German cars from the 70s and 80s on the road today and nothing from British Leyland.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Well yes, it is only relative poverty, which going by the definition of 60% of median income, is currently just shy of £16,000 a year, which is a tidy sum for someone supposedly living in 'poverty'.
    Whilst I'm not interested in debating the politics of Margaret Thatcher, I will say to you and others claiming poverty doesn't exist in the UK, that you are quite wrong. There are many people for whom the cost of living means that rising incomes are dwarfed by ballooning costs. This is especially the case in London. The cost of childcare and the cost of rent in even the cheapest parts of London obliterates the budgets of most ordinary people raising families. You shouldn't neglect this in your appraisal of poverty. Further, whilst right to buy offered a means of home ownership to some it also created an incredible scarcity of social housing and fuelled a system by which private landlords may set their price.

    You can have whatever view you want of any politician but it is arrogant to assume that there is no poverty and far too much credible research arguing the contrary for you to make such a bold assertion.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    The irony of relative poverty is easily demonstrated.

    It is defined as people receiving less than the median income.

    Accept as the basis of the argument that the population of the UK doesn't significantly change when doing your comparison.

    At a certain median income, those below the line will be defined as being in relative poverty and those above it won't.

    Raise the median income so that on average, more people will be better off as on average they will have higher wages than they did before, more will be below the median line and so more will be defined as being in 'poverty'.

    Lower the median income so that on average, more will be worse off, less people will be below the median line for the same reasoning as above and consequently less will be defined as being in 'poverty'

    Relative poverty is a modern invention designed to try to evade the awkward fact that a country like the UK essentially has no poverty (or, in the odd case which might be demonstrated, has a way of relieving it which has not been resorted to).

    Relative poverty can conveniently can never be eradicated, so will always brought up by the left and the indigent in society when people claim for themselves or some special interest group that they are in 'poverty' so more benefits are required.
    Im studying this in Economics currently and it is definitely true, relative poverty is by no means absolute poverty, relative poverty cannot be compared to other countries.

    Its a random figure plucked out of somewhere below the median income line, I could be earning below average income, live with my parents and be spending thousands of pounds buying luxury goods, however i would still be in 'relative poverty'.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.