"The linked paper would disagree with your hypothesis that salaries for the poor grew during the 1980s.
http://www.econ.umn.edu/~fperri/papers/uk2.pdf"
Thanks for the link, this is what I was hoping for, actual statistics rather then bogus claims. I glanced over the paper, and assuming that the data they used are reliable, I would still argue in favour of thatcher.
For starters figure 2.4 uses household income, rather then individual income. The problem with this is that household size has steadily decreased over the last 50 years, due to fewer marriages, more divorces and an overall decline in fertility. This means that your looking at the income of a smaller group, and are stunned to see the result be a lower income.
Its typical politics mind you. Politicians who want to attack opponents policies will blame them for the decreasing or stagnating household incomes, while politicians who want to talk about how great their policies have been will talk about the increase individual incomes. Its how you spin it.
I personally prefer individual income because, for reasons stated above, it is a more reliable source that is less volatile to social changes.
The second point I want to make is that it points out that 10% of families got poorer during the 80s, that means that 90% of families got richer. While this doesn't mean I endorse stealing from the poor to give to the rich, if a policy benefits 90% of those that are effected, and the amount they each benefit is twice as great (saying double because incomes did double) as the amount the 10% loose, then it was probably a successful policy.
@Invictus: Synapse kind of has a point, Hitler was democratically elected and maintained popular support for most of the war. Also he didn't oppress everyone, just the jews, blacks, gypsies, gays, handicapped, muslims and communists.
So by your own logic, unless your one of the aforementioned groups, you would have no right to assassinate Hitler.
"Let's not try to glorify her here. After all, she:"
I agree, she was human, like everyone else. But she was still a good human and great leader.
"Called Mandela a terrorist and supported apartheid"
While Mandela was certainly better then the apartheid, to be fair, had Mandela been anything like Mugabe, which most Europeans thought would be the case, then I would have endorsed the apartheid as well.
In this case the devil you know is better then the devil you don't. This is why I also endorsed Mubarak, Assad etc. during the Arab Spring. Mubarak is way better then Morsi, and the next Syrian leader could be another islamic extremist that turns out to be worse then Assad. I don't want to take the risk.
"helped give aid to Pol Pot"
Not sure the circumstances of this, but it was probably inexcusable. Again she was human, I don't deny that she made mistakes.
"left millions unemployed"
Let the free market correct itself. Unemployment was lower when she left office then when she started.
"supported Pinochet and thanked him for “bringing democracy to Chile”"
Well he did bring democracy to Chile. After 16 years of a military dictatorship, he somehow held the belief that he was popular enough to win an election, so held a free election and was stunned when he lost.
)
I missed a turn because of the server error.
)
)
)
)
)