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

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    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''.
    ''''
    Oh please link me where you got this phrase from, im sure the poor got richer aswell? The liberal dude was blabbering on how he wants the poor poorer, just so the rich are poorer. It was Thatcher stating the poor became richer.

    Also a rise in median income clearly means on average everyone has more money.. Is it so hard to see?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jordan-James)
    Oh please link me where you got this phrase from, im sure the poor got richer aswell? The liberal dude was blabbering on how he wants the poor poorer, just so the rich are poorer. It was Thatcher stating the poor became richer.

    Also a rise in median income clearly means on average everyone has more money.. Is it so hard to see?
    What on Earth are you speaking about? Have you never heard of that phrase before? Then you must be a feral child or something.
    The middle part of your post makes no sense. Write in clear English, your grammar is awful.

    Look up what median means, and compare it to ''mean''. It's not hard to do, either
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    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''.
    ''''
    It is totally irrelevant, since I am not talking about mean incomes. Why would I? My objection is to the use of 'relative poverty' indicators which are based on medians. Median still means average, although to the lesser educated who do not know the difference, when they use the term 'average' they are usually referring to the 'mean', so I am not really surprised that you are harping on about me being wrong to use the term 'average'. But lets get back on the point.

    Why are you, as above (and like you did with Belgrano, until you eventually conceeded) continuing to assert that the phrase 'relative poverty' can have any meaning whatsoever when used as a benchmark to determine an assessment of people living in poverty?

    If the whole country is better off, then more people are in 'relative poverty' due to a higher median income.

    If the whole country is worse off, then less people are in 'relative poverty' due to a lower median income.

    So if naturally it is better that the figure for people in relative poverty is as low as possible, it must logically follow that it is better that a condition exists that UK median incomes be as low as possible :holmes:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by css88)
    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.
    Lets have it then.

    Why don't you define poverty for me, and give me a figure at what you can reasonably define poverty level to be?

    Poverty - as defined by the dictionary, and experienced by the third world populations is a lot different from how the left wing have defined it. For them, it simply means a level of income under that of the average (sorry, median) person in society multiplied by an arbitrary percentage. You only have to look at the BBC and Guardian etc, they are all using 'relative poverty' instead of absolute poverty.

    Simply because, as I have already demonstrated, no one in the UK is in poverty.

    You frequently hear soundbites bandied about - "One in five children in the UK is living in poverty", and then they go on to talk about average incomes.

    In times past I've lived in not particularly affluent areas but I have not seen any children dying of starvation or freezing to death through not being clothed, and I very much doubt you have either. In fact, I'm willing to bet not a single person from TSR has seen this happening in the UK.

    They are not poverty stricken. The only poverty I see around me comes from the parents. The poverty of ambition.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AntiMonarchist)
    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.
    Where?

    Germany?

    I see a lot of German cars or cars manufactured by German-owned manufacturers, but none from the 70s or 80s!

    Anything pre 90 would surely have a what, D-reg? At the most.
    It's a rarity seeing a car with an 'old' registration plate now.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    Lets have it then.

    Why don't you define poverty for me, and give me a figure at what you can reasonably define poverty level to be?

    Poverty - as defined by the dictionary, and experienced by the third world populations is a lot different from how the left wing have defined it. For them, it simply means a level of income under that of the average (sorry, median) person in society multiplied by an arbitrary percentage. You only have to look at the BBC and Guardian etc, they are all using 'relative poverty' instead of absolute poverty.

    Simply because, as I have already demonstrated, no one in the UK is in poverty.

    You frequently hear soundbites bandied about - "One in five children in the UK is living in poverty", and then they go on to talk about average incomes.

    In times past I've lived in not particularly affluent areas but I have not seen any children dying of starvation or freezing to death through not being clothed, and I very much doubt you have either. In fact, I'm willing to bet not a single person from TSR has seen this happening in the UK.

    They are not poverty stricken. The only poverty I see around me comes from the parents. The poverty of ambition.

    I would say start off looking at the various conceptions of poverty by familiarising yourself with Titmuss, Hartley Dean is a fairly good starting point too. You could also look at other, related concepts from Lenoir or Sen.

    If you're asking for visible, Dickensian 'les Mis' street poverty as the only possible way of conceiving poverty then my personal view is that you take a very limited approach. You are of course free to take such a view but here we part ways as I cannot agree with such a narrow conception of suffering.

    There are always going to be definitional difficulties with any concept and problems with measurement too. Take income increases - it may look like drastic increases but when offset by the rate of inflation, notably on housing costs, the measurement seems less impressive. All I can say is that if you are happy as long as you don't see children dying in the street then I believe you set a very low bar for our society.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    It is totally irrelevant, since I am not talking about mean incomes. Why would I? My objection is to the use of 'relative poverty' indicators which are based on medians. Median still means average, although to the lesser educated who do not know the difference, when they use the term 'average' they are usually referring to the 'mean', so I am not really surprised that you are harping on about me being wrong to use the term 'average'. But lets get back on the point.

    Why are you, as above (and like you did with Belgrano, until you eventually conceeded) continuing to assert that the phrase 'relative poverty' can have any meaning whatsoever when used as a benchmark to determine an assessment of people living in poverty?

    If the whole country is better off, then more people are in 'relative poverty' due to a higher median income.

    If the whole country is worse off, then less people are in 'relative poverty' due to a lower median income.

    So if naturally it is better that the figure for people in relative poverty is as low as possible, it must logically follow that it is better that a condition exists that UK median incomes be as low as possible :holmes:
    You need to stop hallucinating. When did I ever object to your use of the term 'average'? Read my post again, re-read it, and then read it again until you understand it. You are confusing 'mean' with 'median'. So much for the ''highly educated'' people like yourself?
    I'm getting tired of repeating myself. Having a high income mean, then yes, people will be better off. Median is different though, the bottom people can be poorer than ever with the median income still rising. How do I get this into your head? A large middle class but with a very poor, albeit small, lower and working class.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    Lets have it then.


    Simply because, as I have already demonstrated, no one in the UK is in poverty.

    You frequently hear soundbites bandied about - "One in five children in the UK is living in poverty", and then they go on to talk about average incomes.

    In times past I've lived in not particularly affluent areas but I have not seen any children dying of starvation or freezing to death through not being clothed, and I very much doubt you have either. In fact, I'm willing to bet not a single person from TSR has seen this happening in the UK.

    They are not poverty stricken. The only poverty I see around me comes from the parents. The poverty of ambition.
    Could you let the people who died because of fuel poverty know that it was, in fact not poverty in the financial sense that was responsible but the poverty of ambition.
    Here's a lazy reference for you http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s-7462426.html
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by css88)
    I would say start off looking at the various conceptions of poverty by familiarising yourself with Titmuss, Hartley Dean is a fairly good starting point too. You could also look at other, related concepts from Lenoir or Sen.
    Presumably you didn't mean Abi Titmuss. I was expecting you'd actually provide some RELEVANT links that I could click, or attributed citations with references, rather than me having to Google their names, read all their published works and do the research for you.

    (Original post by css88)
    If you're asking for visible, Dickensian 'les Mis' street poverty as the only possible way of conceiving poverty then my personal view is that you take a very limited approach. You are of course free to take such a view but here we part ways as I cannot agree with such a narrow conception of suffering.
    No, I simply asked you to define what you thought poverty meant, and set a reasonable amount of income to what you thought put someone in poverty. Then we will take it from there. I wonder why you simply label my statement as a 'narrow conception of suffering' without previously setting down your benchmark for what you consider that suffering to be?

    (Original post by css88)
    There are always going to be definitional difficulties with any concept and problems with measurement too. Take income increases - it may look like drastic increases but when offset by the rate of inflation, notably on housing costs, the measurement seems less impressive. All I can say is that if you are happy as long as you don't see children dying in the street then I believe you set a very low bar for our society.
    So you say.

    When you contrive your definition of poverty to be relative to what others are earning, that is where you end up looking stupid, as I have already demonstrated with the way 'poverty' is calculated in the UK.

    What happens to the living standards of others has nothing to do with it.

    Taking income increases relative to housing costs and inflation and the financial crisis, I'm guessing here you are hinting at people struggling to stay above water (to use a cliché) with their living costs increasing relative to their income, maybe not being able to pay the rent/mortgage and losing their house because of it, am I right?

    Meaningless really. These same problems can be identified in the well off with incomes above the median.

    Take Shane Filan, of Westlife, recently property magnate in Ireland until it all went down the toilet and he ran away to southern England to declare bankruptcy because you can start again with a clean slate after two years, versus the twelve it takes in the Republic.

    Is he 'poor'?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    You need to stop hallucinating.
    I think I must be hallucinating, reading your posts after I explained it in terms so simple even a child could understand

    (Original post by amineamine2)
    When did I ever object to your use of the term 'average'?
    Where you took it to imagine I was taking about mean incomes when I was talking about median incomes (see the quote below)

    (Original post by amineamine2)
    Read my post again, re-read it, and then read it again until you understand it. You are confusing 'mean' with 'median'.
    Please quote the post number where I do this?

    (Original post by amineamine2)
    So much for the ''highly educated'' people like yourself?
    LOL

    (Original post by amineamine2)
    I'm getting tired of repeating myself. Having a high income mean, then yes, people will be better off.
    Okkkkkk. But nobody mentioned a high income mean but you. In any case, having a high income mean (as in average) can also mean (as in signify) that those at the bottom could be very poor. It's clear you do not understand...

    (Original post by amineamine2)
    Median is different though, the bottom people can be poorer than ever with the median income still rising.
    They can be. But so what? They can also be richer. With 'relative poverty' this is totally and utterly irrelevant as no assessment is made of the ACTUAL levels of income of those at the bottom.

    Take a contrived example of a few million people where the median income in a sample is £30,000. Those at the bottom could be at £29,999.99 or £0.01. Now imagine that the median rises to £35,000. Is it not at all possible that those at the bottom can also have their income rise as well as fall? But with 'relative poverty' that doesn't matter if it does or not, all that has happened is the median has risen, so more are in 'poverty'

    For all you know, their incomes rose by the same amount - even a larger amount in relative terms compared to those at the median, but oh no, the median income has risen, these people below the line are now in POVERTY when they weren't before, in spite of getting MORE money, and often a proportionally larger amount of income (eg a £5,000 raise is a greater proportion of the income of someone on £20,000 than someone on £30,000)

    Unless you are actually going to deny that it is possible to have a high median income and still have relatively well off people at the bottom?

    That is another reason why the definition of 'relative poverty' that takes into account median incomes is *******s.

    (Original post by amineamine2)
    How do I get this into your head? A large middle class but with a very poor, albeit small, lower and working class.
    Irrelevant. What other people are earning has no basis on the level of poverty you may or may not be experiencing.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    She was the last real politician we ever had, that is to say, someone who actually had to strive to get where they were and was not a career politician. That's why she was such a workaholic and actually got things done. In this elitist country today, it would be almost impossible to achieve; politics is as closed a shop as any 1970s trade union. While she did of course benefit incalculably from going up to Oxford, from marrying a rich man, and yes, from being a woman, her overwhelming symbolism (if not reality) is of a grammar school meritocrat.

    While doubtless the incarnation of evil, I find her a singularly inspiring figure, and this is from someone who is usually deeply, deeply cynical about personalities. She cried both on getting elected to the party leadership and on being booted out. It is plain that the speed of her cognitive decline thereafter was because she didn't have anything difficult enough to do with herself.

    She worked too damn hard for the rest of them to keep up, and when you're in that position you tend to feel you'd be better off just doing it all yourself. That's why she was dictatorial (and it is not wrong to use that word, we in the democratic West are only ever a hair's breadth away from a Pinochet or Pol Pot situation). Her tragic flaw was that she was not able or willing to understand that normal people just weren't able to muster that sort of dedication, which was at the root of all rifts with her party and her electorate.

    Now that the Thatcherite paradigm has run its course, something has to rise up and challenge it, but what? I can't even begin to think of an alternative. Can any of you?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    I'm getting tired of repeating myself. Having a high income mean, then yes, people will be better off. Median is different though, the bottom people can be poorer than ever with the median income still rising. How do I get this into your head? A large middle class but with a very poor, albeit small, lower and working class.
    I am sorry, relative poverty is a term that has been devised as a clandestine way to brand income inequality as poverty.

    Using the measure of relative poverty, North Korea is not a poor country because few of the population have an income significantly below the median. Monaco has a great deal of poverty because even though the bottom earning 10% of the Monegasque population probably earn more than 90% of the population of North Korea, a much greater proportion of the Monegasque population earn significantly below the median earnings of the Monegasque.

    You say:

    If you're asking for visible, Dickensian 'les Mis' street poverty as the only possible way of conceiving poverty then my personal view is that you take a very limited approach. You are of course free to take such a view but here we part ways as I cannot agree with such a narrow conception of suffering.

    There are always going to be definitional difficulties with any concept and problems with measurement too. Take income increases - it may look like drastic increases but when offset by the rate of inflation, notably on housing costs, the measurement seems less impressive. All I can say is that if you are happy as long as you don't see children dying in the street then I believe you set a very low bar for our society.
    The further problem with relative poverty is that someone is deprived of the right to set a low bar. Moving the bar merely changes the level of income inequality that a society tolerates, not the level of poverty. If the rich get richer, the concept of relative poverty means that the poor automatically get poorer.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    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.
    Yes, once again, because he was at war with Iran. A simple case of an enemy of my enemy is my friend, even if he is actually a ****.

    (Original post by amineamine2)
    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.
    You clearly don't know the meaning of the word hypocrite. Supporting Iraq's war against Iran when it's in your best interest to do so, then condemning Iraq's war against Kuwait when it's in your best interests to do so, is not hypocrisy.

    (Original post by amineamine2)
    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.
    Because he was an ally of the UK during her reign. She's not a flip-flopper.

    (Original post by amineamine2)
    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.
    Hungary, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Serbia and Afghanistan have better income equality than the UK. Last time I checked those weren't lands of sunshine and roses. I like how you conveniently ignore anything that doesn't fit in with your view.

    (Original post by amineamine2)
    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.
    What on Earth are you talking about?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by css88)
    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.
    You might want to check the definition of what poverty actually is. Clearly the fact that families struggle to make ends meet is regretable, but things like expensive childcare is at the end of the day a first world problem and is not poverty.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I respect Thatcher because she was the first woman to become PM.

    However, I find her policies 'interesting'. If I was born in a council house in the late 60s and were to work in the City then I'd think I'd love Thatchers policies. I wasn't so, I can't.

    When I think of Thatcher-style policies (including those in the Major Government) two words come to my mind "SHORT TERM-ism".

    In other words, I think a lot of Thatcher policies were fantastic in the short term, but we are now paying for them. Here is a handful:

    1. Right to buy council house: great for those in the 80s as they got to buy a property and the councils made some money. A few years later.... there is a housing crisis and many are housed in B&Bs or the private sector.

    2. Deregulation of the City: great in the short term, many made money and tax revenues were high. A few years later.... recession.

    3. The rise of credit: again, great in the short term- many got to buy phones etc. A few years later.... credit crunch.

    4. Closure of the pits: great, we cut down waste..... But in the long term we have vast amount of areas where people are unemployed and have still not recovered. Sometimes it is better to subsidise something so people remain in work and not on the dole e.g Remploy

    5. Privatisation: Made a lot of money in the short term. But some of them such as water is questionable whether they are a success.
    Though I'll admit privatising things like BT, BA etc were a good idea. Having said that it was the EU that was forcing this more than anybody else.

    6. "No such thing as society", encouragement of money and greed: we're paying for that now!

    So there we go. That is my opinion of the policies.
    Made a lot of people happy in the 70/80s but I feel many of the problems we have now (particularly with society) are a cause of these policies. Not so great in the long term!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AntiMonarchist)
    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.
    I can see a Triumph Dolomite from my office window, there's a Triumph Stag for sale at a local dealership (in fact I've seen quite a few of them around), I saw a 1973 Mini Clubman a few months back...

    Just go on http://www.carandclassic.co.uk/ - hundreds of former BL cars on there.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    Presumably you didn't mean Abi Titmuss. I was expecting you'd actually provide some RELEVANT links that I could click, or attributed citations with references, rather than me having to Google their names, read all their published works and do the research for you.
    Now now, absolutely no need for that sort of tone. As a very wise professor once said to me, it is no one else's job to do your scholarship for you. I don't particularly have the time to find you academic journal pieces and I can't offer you the access that my university affords me, so in any case it wouldn't really even work. If you want quick links online you're unlikely to be reading much peer reviewed, credible work.

    (Original post by marcusfox)
    No, I simply asked you to define what you thought poverty meant, and set a reasonable amount of income to what you thought put someone in poverty. Then we will take it from there. I wonder why you simply label my statement as a 'narrow conception of suffering' without previously setting down your benchmark for what you consider that suffering to be?

    When you contrive your definition of poverty to be relative to what others are earning, that is where you end up looking stupid, as I have already demonstrated with the way 'poverty' is calculated in the UK.
    'Professor Peter Townsend, a leading authority on UK poverty, defines relative
    poverty as when someone’s “resources are so seriously below those
    commanded by the average individual or family that they are, in effect,
    excluded from ordinary living patterns, customs and activities”.' (JRF).

    This, as you have rightly said lends itself to a flexible notion of poverty, meaning that as incomes increase a % will always be considered in poverty no matter what their income. One of the great issues re: poverty as a discourse is this. The fact that this way of regarding poverty can produce outliers or guaranteed poverty, despite income level, does not mean that no people live in poverty. You conspicuously ignored the existence of fuel poverty and the deaths caused by it. I recently read an international development piece where aid workers observed that, in essence, the main difference is that the global North is much better at hiding its poor than the global South. Just one other opinion but I doubt your self-proclamation that poverty doesn't exist is any more valid, or that you have done any real work or research on this area. Reading the Telegraph doesn't count y'know.



    (Original post by marcusfox)
    What happens to the living standards of others has nothing to do with it.

    Taking income increases relative to housing costs and inflation and the financial crisis, I'm guessing here you are hinting at people struggling to stay above water (to use a cliché) with their living costs increasing relative to their income, maybe not being able to pay the rent/mortgage and losing their house because of it, am I right?

    Meaningless really. These same problems can be identified in the well off with incomes above the median.

    Take Shane Filan, of Westlife, recently property magnate in Ireland until it all went down the toilet and he ran away to southern England to declare bankruptcy because you can start again with a clean slate after two years, versus the twelve it takes in the Republic.

    Is he 'poor'?
    Okay, lets make this real then. Put a face on it and you can tell me how not poor people are.
    Single mum, 1 year old identical twins, husband left her. Earns £30k from a decent job she worked hard to get. She takes home, after tax, student loan and pension deduction about £1760 a month. She has to put her children into fulltime childcare to do this. The cheapest childcare she could get comes to £375 a week (£1625 pm) and the rent on her horrible, ex-council flat in a run-down block comes to just £1100 (bargain!). Luckily the state helps her out and she gets support towards those crazy childcare costs of about £230 a week (£1005.33 pm), and lets not forget that £33.40 in child benefit a week (£144.73 pm) She then has to legally pay £90 in council tax a month.
    So where are we at now? lets see..
    Income:
    £1760 + £1005.33 + £144.73 = £2910.06. Lucky lady!

    Then, outgoings, keep it simple to start:
    Rent: £1100, Childcare: £1625, Council Tax: £90 = £2,815.

    So, that leaves her with £95.06 per month for gas, electricity, food, clothes for her growing children and this is all assuming it's totally fine with her to walk 20 miles to work and back a day. Don't forget, once you are late at nursery it is standard to start charging by the minute. Get your running shoes on!

    You can argue that she should move somewhere cheaper, be a stay at home mum, never had children etc etc but at the end of the day she did it all right. She got married, she had a good job and so did hubby, they only wanted one child but got blessed with two. She didn't know he'd run away with someone else, leave the country and pay no child support. If she moves away her mum can't help her anymore and she will have no support network. Some people do have to face incredibly difficult circumstances and just because their faces don't fit with your images of Dickensian poverty doesn't mean it doesn't feel like it to them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Oh and if you hadn't noticed there, she isn't even supposed to be in poverty with an income considerably above the average. Capitalism forces us to be wage labourers - if the wages don't cover the basic costs of food and shelter or childcare which facilitates the ability to be a wage labourer, then you are in poverty.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    You might want to check the definition of what poverty actually is. Clearly the fact that families struggle to make ends meet is regretable, but things like expensive childcare is at the end of the day a first world problem and is not poverty.
    I'd direct you to the posts I have just made as they should address your point. If a condition of living in your society is that you need to be a wage labourer then childcare isn't purely a 'first world problem' is the only way that you are likely to be able to earn a living, unless you have a very fortunate situation with family who are well off enough to look after your children for free, or your employer lets you bring them to work with you.
    • PS Helper
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    Study Helper
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    You might want to check the definition of what poverty actually is. Clearly the fact that families struggle to make ends meet is regretable, but things like expensive childcare is at the end of the day a first world problem and is not poverty.

    POVERTY

    1. The state of being extremely poor.
    2. The state of being inferior in quality or insufficient in amount.

    Do you really not think these things are present in the UK at the moment? London is rife with it, you might want to look up some of the charities that have ballooned up for starving homes and homeless people.

    I've read through practically all of this thread with some mild amusement. Most of the people attacking Maggy are attacking policies that weren't really hers, and All of the people defending her are using policies that weren't much to do with her. The only real policy that could have directly come from her was the VAT increase, which we all know proved to be a huge mistake. The prosperity experienced under her was a result of policies brought in by the previous government slowly taking effect, and her government capitalised on it by following a huge privatisation policy. By the end of her term her policies had set the country on such a bad path with inevitable crashes that her own cabinet kicked her out. I think the significance of that is always overlooked, everyone else suggested she resign from as early as 1981.

    Anything that has been used to defend her policies was over by the end of her reign. She had ten years in power, and the first few saw massive profits for some and crushing unemployment for up to 5million people (Doubled rates). By the end of her decade of control there was a high rate of inflation and an even higher rate of unemployment, which slowly declined under the next government. She did massive damage to the UK economy and used get rich quick image boosting schemes to make her first years of power successful, which couldn't sustain her for the entirety of her time in power. The only opinion that can be held solely on her policies is that she failed catastrophically.

    And yet people will still defend her, because of some strange sense of undying loyalty. Sit down and ask yourself why you really want to reply to me defending her before you do, because everyone who knows anything about the political history knows it's not to do with an impartial appraisal but some kind of personal bias. Usually I've found it's to do with defending who parents might have voted for, and if it's did chill out - I'm not calling your parents stupid. My Dad voted for Maggy's government too.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

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