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

Cut Welfare..... Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dj1015)
    However...

    If the welfare system was cut back to not include payments for having children, then people should also get a tax cut as well.

    So no one loses out and the state is reduced in size to everyone benefit.
    If only people who were ten times more intelligent than you could see how simple it would be to achieve this.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Donald Duck)
    Labour's not limited to Blair and Brown.

    Thatcher stood up to what was happening to Britain, and forced Britain to face what was heading its way. We've been on the way down for over the past 100 years in terms of a nation. That means we're losing economic as well as political power, and are no longer able to force the rest of the world to buy from us. This means we've been falling in how our living standards compare to those of the rest of the world for a long time now. The fact that the world's living standards have kept on rising meant that ours have risen too (quite significantly), but we've lost significant parts of our head start.
    Yes, we don't have an empire any more, that's what happens.

    Britain would be much worse of if Thatcher hadn't come along.

    As an example, take the regulations in order to fire people. If you effectively prevent firms from firing people, you'll do great in the election in 2 years time. Hardly anyone's gotten unemployed. The problem is that hiring people becomes far more expensive, and when firms eventually lose people (due to retirement, etc), they don't hire as many others. New firms decide to set up in other countries, or not at all, as it has become more expensive to start up. Ultimately, in 20 years time, you end up with far fewer people being employed, even though very few people got hired.

    The world has become a tougher place, and we need to work very hard to compete. It was always going to get worse, unless we would've continued with the same place in the world and it's collonialism, which would have been horrendous for most of the 99% of the world which lives outside of Britain.
    The era between WW2 and the mid-1970s can in some senses be seen as a compromise. In North America and Western Europe, there were strong growth rates; the incomes and living standards of both rich and poor were rising at more or less the same constant rate. However, this compromise would only ever work if some people weren't included - i.e. The Third World, women, black people, etc. But as the second half of 20th century progressed, the compromise became increasingly under pressure to accommodate more people, and in the 1970s it collapsed under that pressure. Governments had to choose between the rich and everybody else. In the UK, Heath, Wilson and Callaghan all tried to avoid or postpone making that choice. Then Thatcher came in and decisively sided with the rich.

    Since then growth rates have remained more or less the same as they were before the crash of the 1970s, but most people have barely seen their incomes rise, whereas those of the rich have skyrocketed.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    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.