I take it then you do not like democracy. An authoritarian type society is preferred by you. No they weren't. People were suffering from a massive drop in living standards which wages were not keeping up with. Britain had been offered a larger than needed IMF loan which had a stipulation that we basically make austerity cuts... . http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/4323/1/WR...mic_policy_making_in_britain_pp_26-6-2009.pdf That obviously is going back to Callaghan's time and I think I can remember from previous reading that it was two American neo cons who demanded the cuts and offered the larger than needed loan, which can be seen as is said above in order 'to implement its established preferences by altering perceptions about the range of policies'. The Labour Party were split apart by this and it resulted as I said in people receiving far less increase in wages than they were experiencing in inflation hence the strikes. ...but we were just about to get the revenue from North Sea oil and our financial problems could have been over...so no, the Unions were not destroying the country - people were trying to live but Thatcher being a neo liberal and wanting to get rid of Keynesian economics used that rhetoric in order to establish monetarism, make us a far less equal society with an underclass as well as diminishing our democracy which like her neo con friends in the US she did not agree with. No, they did not survive because of the mass reduction in Unions. That and Labour turning itself to neo liberalism hence no longer being a support to the WC was as I said how things developed leaving those people vulnerable to the far right as we have seen. Let's take one of Thatcher's most effective strategies. Allowing the sale of council houses. This gave her immediately many more supporters. Why? Because obviously they had to care about them, were involved in the economics of them and wanted to make big money on them and so on. Needs of the market and all as you say. But for the UK it has now resulted in the reality that people can no longer afford to buy a house until they are well into their thirties if then, whereas when I was young people used to buy their first house when they left college. In addition we have been paying landlords so that they can charge extortionate rates since the late 80's. As you can see this is just changing the rules to allow those who have to get a bit more and not allowing those who do not have to get started. Hence this goes against democracy which must have within it equality of opportunity and instead has of course changed us into a plutocracy where we are ruled by the most wealthy. Not quite as you believe. As to the rest of this, well believe it or not to some people there is more to life than just money but I think you are an excellent example of the psychology of Thatcherism so I understand why you love her so much. Thatcher loved Milton Friedman. In describing his philosophy he gave a little example. His believe was that we were all little Robinson Crusoes caring only for ourselves. He believed this really was the psychology of all people. Now 'think about it' he said to prove his point, 'you are walking down the road with three friends and you find a ten dollar bill' - would be a hundred today. 'Now he says would you share it with your friends? Of course not' he says 'you would put it in your pocket and keep it for yourself' - and that is the psychology of people who believe this way but it is not the psychology of all people. Some people feel good sharing. Some people have empathy. The world you speak of does not. It is just selfish just for yourself and not only that being so patronising of other people who do not think your way that you imagine they will be living in doss houses. sad.
You can take what you like, but the above is still a wild stretch designed to lie by twisting words. You attempt is a really pathetic debating style.
The first bit of that is a direct lie. The second is an admission Britain couldn't afford the unions so had to borrow. I paraphrase from the mouth of a great person: The trouble with socialists is sooner or later they run out of other people's money. The unions demanded higher and higher wages for less and less work. They imposed working conditions that were unrealistic and it was pretty much impossible to sack anyone regardless of what they did. That "Socialist" greed drove inflation to stupid levels and made British products all but impossible to sell because the prices were way too high and the quality dropped to crap because there was no longer any effective management. Maggie simply flushed the turns down the loo.
