So why she is good and Ahmadinejad bad ? if you don't care about the gap it means that middle class vanishes and will become poor but with more income in compare with poor's income before , and rich get richer, numbers inn both side is increasing unfairly , is this not exactly what happened in Iran ? being ignorant to the gap is being ignorant to the healthy spreading wealth in society .
so nasty is your logic I must say...
What a completely irrelevant comparison. You really expect a reasonable response to this rubbish?
Even worse than economic illiteracy is historical illiteracy. Although those things often coincide. Have you ever stopped to ask yourself what Thatcher was reversing and why those institutions were there in the first place? Probably not. You probably have no clue why I am asking you this anyway. What's the point?
Yep, you want some historical background? How far do you want me to go? Let's take Lloyd George's premiership and the introduction of the state pension in January 1909 whereby men aged 70 and above could claim between 2 and 5 shillings per week from the government. Now this seemed like a great idea because Britain was amongst the richest countries on earth thanks to the height of the empire, so they could afford it. It wasn't a big committment because back then the average male could expect to live to age 48. But Lloyd George initiated a social experiment that would soon spiral out of control. The government agreed to redistribute taxes to support people in their old age. On that day, more than any other, the modern welfare state began in earnest. The idea that Britain could face any kind of decline – financial or otherwise – had not yet entered mainstream thinking. They had not yet fought two crippling wars and could afford to pay for a welfare state, so why shouldn’t it be implemented?
However, the problem was: now the welfare state had started… no one had any idea where it would stop… or whether it could actually be stopped if it became unaffordable.
George had created a trap for the nation which then stepped right into it. "
Please sir, can I have some more money"? It wasn’t until the Second World War was finally over that the welfare state really began to grow. Welfare was seen as a major part of “Winning the Peace”; keeping the forces of Socialism and Fascism at bay. Of course, politicians soon realised welfare wasn’t just a tool to win the peace. It was also incredibly effective at winning votes too. The government promised to look after you “from Cradle to Grave”. This single, powerful idea allowed the government to grow a size unimaginable just half a century earlier. But as it made more promises and got bigger, so did the cost. Everyone assumed they'd be able to pay for it forever. But they were wrong.
Politicians found themselves caught in this trap and any attempt to reduce the size of the welfare state was met with often violent resistance in the form of strikes and protests. Or the party trying to cut back – to do the sensible thing - was simply voted out of power. After all, an ever growing proportion of the population now benefitted from the welfare state, in one way or another. The safety net couldn’t just be pulled away. The government would forever be saddled with an expense that could ONLY grow.
Now I hope you have the ability to connect what I am saying to what Thatcher intended to do. It was difficult and she did not succeed all the way of course for the reasons I mentioned just above. But the premise is there. You can still insist I have no clue why you asked me that question but that's your prerogative!
