Quote:
Originally Posted by onelifecrisis
Excuse me for butting in here but can I ask you to clarify what you mean? I would normally assume that by "Thatcher's Britain" you mean Britain as it was in the 80's, but you followed it with "continues to" which suggests you actually mean Britain today? I'm probably just being dense... but are you saying that Britain today is the same as it was under Thatcher? I'm not trying to disagree with anything you said, I'm just trying to understand that bit of it.
|
Your interjection is most welcome, you are not being "dense" at all, only inquisitive, and I will be happy to address your arguments. Through discussion, we may discover that
I am the one who is dense.
In truth, it is I who should be offering apologies, since I did not make my point more clear.
I am not saying that Britain today is the same as it was under Thatcher. What I am saying is that Thatcher's Britain of the 80's has suffered under political agendas since her departure. it still exists, to some degree, but it has been largely destroyed by centrist agenda.
Since Thatcher, new legislation has been imposed and companies both dometstic and extranationial have found ways of taking advantage of that legislation to secure their own positions, not to mention politicians.
For comparison, consider the US. As I said to Tribesman, it has a history of supporting the free market more than other nations. Diregarding its' resources and size, the key word is "more". Business, and the associated prosperity, is always attracted to the most favourable venue. If it cannot establish a place in a social-industrial complex, it will simply seek the next most favourable place, usually a less-established social-industrial complex or a free market. Basically, it goes where the prospects for success are most favorable.
Under Thatcher's reforms, the United Kingdom began to advance in the way that a free-market nation should. Though the advances were rapid, they were not instantaneous, and much of the population became disillusioned with them. They turned instead to promises of prosperity and reform that were never quite delivered.
One of the curiosities of human nature is the willingness to exchange prosperity for the promise of greater and supposedly more expedient prosperity based upon rhetoric alone. I blame it on our genetic nature, which equates positive social interaction with reproductive potential. Actual success can be superceded by the promise of greater success delivered in superior wording. It all comes from being a social species. I'll be happy to explain more along that line of reasoning via PM, but I don't think it responsible to just display it in public. If I am right, it kind of ruins the "fun" for everyone, and if I am wrong it kind of ruins the "fun" for everyone for no reason.
In any case, the point is that Thatcher's reforms never really got a chance to impress themselves upon the public consciousness. I have no doubt that she was mostly right in her views, but the political structure did not change enough in time to vindicate them. Despite the leaps Britain made under Thatcher's reforms, the ingrained power structure managed to mitigate and even reverse them with a yet-undelivered promise for greater success. In short, the success of the free market could not override the public desire for instant gratification.