[tome]

> Nobody able to change national policy within Downing Street or even ministries in Whitehall, at the time - or since - has had the gumption to say it's not working and we need to do something about it.

Thatcher's been dead for 12 years and out of power for 35, so I'm not sure why it should take much gumption. All it needs is national leaders who believe in the flourishing of the country, and that that requires infrastructure development, not just banks, software and scientific research. Unfortunately I don't see any such leader on the horizon.

[komali2]

> Thatcher's been dead for 12 years and out of power for 35, so I'm not sure why it should take much gumption.

Reagan, Thatcher, all the same, and their ideology kept alive by neoliberals (basically every politician that isn't an out and out socialist or snidely toeing fascism) and the Chicago school of economics.

Find me a national leader that believing in the flourishing of the country (and all the people in it) and I'll find you an entire political apparatus in opposition to that in favor of the flourishing of Capital.

[tome]

> Find me a national leader that believing in the flourishing of the country

But I can't find one, that's the point.

[refurb]

I’m assuming you’re really young.

The US and UK were in terrible shape before Reagan and Thatcher took office. Both improved after they were elected?

[komali2]

If you're going to assume my age, I'll go ahead and assume your race, because I can't imagine why someone would support think Ronald "Strapping young bucks" Reagan, President of "School desegregation is a bad thing," steered the USA in a good direction. The same guy that opposed the voting rights act? The guy that didn't want an MLK day because people weren't acknowledging the 'reality' of the man? The guy that vetoed the civil rights restoration act?

Mr. savings and loans crisis? The guy that tripled the national debt?

The epically failed war on drugs guy? That guy improved the united states?

[refurb]

We were talking about making the country better not the media circus around it.

The US and UK economies were terrible. Stagflation, “malaise”.

Reagan ushered in a decade of strong economic growth. I’m sure all races would trade of a higher paycheck despite the media comments.

[dahart]

> Reagan ushered in a decade of strong economic growth

By what measure? Can you source that claim?

“Since World War II, according to many economic metrics including job creation, GDP growth, stock market returns, personal income growth, and corporate profits, the United States economy has performed significantly better on average under the administrations of Democratic presidents than Republican presidents.”

Reagan was the only Republican that reduced unemployment by a little bit, but he was in the lower half of presidents who did that. But he failed to increase employment significantly, he increased the deficit significantly, and he did damage with the bunk feed-the-rich “Trickle Down” theories.

Even Trump agreed. “During a March 2004 interview, Trump stated: ‘It just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats than the Republicans.’”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._economic_performance_by_p...

[refurb]

1979 inflation: 13.3%, GDP growth: 3.2%

1984 inflation: 4%, GDP growth: 7.4%

Higher growth less inflation is great for us workers

[FridayoLeary]

In the UK the improvement was so massive that socialism died and Labour had to reinvent itself as a centrist party in order to stay alive. Thames water is horribly mismanaged and the rail as well is overpriced but i don't trust nationalisation to fix the problems. The government can simply cover up issues by providing subsidies.

Again if any politicians today were half the person Thatcher was things might actually get done. Even Blair might be an improvement.

[bluecheese452]

No?