Humanities desk
< March 9	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 11 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 10

market

Is more correct "immovable property market" or "immovable properties market" or other?--95.247.22.119 (talk) 10:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably you talking about Immovable property - as such it may depend on where in the world you wish to say the expression. In the UK, we would say "the property market".--Dweller (talk) 12:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And in the US, you say "real estate". Note, however, that houses can sometimes be moved, although at great expense and/or risk, so it's normally only done with historic buildings. (And of course mobile homes can be moved, but that's not what we're talking about here.) StuRat (talk) 16:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which Progressive policy influenced the Seventeenth Amendment?

Which Progressive policy influenced the Seventeenth Amendment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.25.170.174 (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. You can read about it yourself at Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which does describe some of the political and social background to the Amendment. --Jayron 32 15:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that there are four constitutions that have had a seventeenth amendment. Jayron has assumed that you are United States (which is where your IP address resolves to), however for your future reference you should state which country you are talking about. LongHairedFop (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of these four, how many were influenced by Progressive policy? —Tamfang (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Thatcher

I have a question about Thatcherism: When Margaret Thatcher was carrying out her policies in the 1980's, how did the British 'Left' go about responding to the challenges of Thatcherism? --Roadinffrog (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles titled Premiership of Margaret Thatcher and Thatcherism that contain critique from the left. --Jayron 32 21:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A good place to start would be our article on Thatcherism. I would also recommend you read a copy of Quintin Hogg's 1976 Dimbleby Lecture, Elective dictatorship (if you are a university it will be in the politics library; if you are at school you may have to search around a bit for a copy). Once you are clear on the general modus operandi of Thatcherism and the UK government at that time, you'll have some context for understanding what options were available for the Left to organise its response.

Broadly, we can split the Left's response to Thatcherism into two main strands: parliamentary opposition and extra-parliamentary action. As you'll see from the references I've already mentioned, and as you should understand from your general knowledge of UK constitutional theory, a determined government with a united party forming a clear majority in the House of Commons is largely invulnerable to opposition tactics in the big "set piece" debates. Parliamentary opposition thus necessarily had to consist of work during the "committee" stages of the government's bills, and speechifying in preparation for the next election (that is, the next opportunity for the Left to get real power). The parliamentary Left was split between those who recognised the need for the Thatcherite reforms, and those who sought to preserve the explicitly socialist (as opposed to social democratic) traditions of the Labour Party. Much of the Left's parliamentary energy was expended in sniping between those two factions, leading to the formation of the SDP in the early 1980s. This split of the parliamentary Left lasted through much of the 1980s, and may have reduced the effectiveness of the Left's parliamentary opposition to Thatcherism.

Extra-parliamentary opposition consisted, to a large extent, of activities by organised labour, much of it under the auspices of the Trades Union Congress and/or individual Trades Unions. The great culmination of this was the famous UK miners' strike (1984–85).

I'll leave it to my colleagues to flesh out this "bare bones" summary! RomanSpa (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A really good framework to add detail to. Remember, "the Left" was very far from being a monolith; in fact it was deeply divided, and with no agreement about to respond to Thatcher. You might find Hall and Jacques' The Politics of Thatcherism useful. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is how us Socialists in the North paid tribute to that witch. Do you know why she is called Britain's last female prime minister? Because she IS the last. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 22:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete or hat your comment. It's nothing to do with the question, and in no way answers it. RomanSpa (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does it not illustrate one answer to "how did the British 'Left' go about responding..."? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BB, for backing me up. She actually destroyed the North's economy, because we are socialist. She was capitalist. We were very happy to see her leave office. When she died, to be honest, none of us cared. We were too busy rebuilding the very stuff she had destroyed. THIS is how lefties think. This is a video of Liverpool football fans before a game with Sunderland (another city which she destroyed) singing together, the same chant. We stand together against a common foe. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 04:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Her buddy Ronald Reagan likewise set the tone for quite a few of the bad things that have happened to America in the intervening thirty-plus years. I wonder, though, how much of the vitriol directed at Thatcher was either because of, or enhanced by, the mere fact of her being female? I recall Monty Python making fun of her clear back in the 60s. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Her gender has nothing to do with it, her disastrous policies everything. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 07:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that what Kage-chan was getting at is that Thatcher put an indelible stain on the office that has impacted later female MPs. 13:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

That is exactly what I was saying. She was our first female PM, and it's just an unfortunate fact that anyone with any living memory of her will not elect another. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 14:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that a reviled male PM will be followed by another male PM, and another, and another ...; but a reviled female PM has to wait till she's long dead and half-forgotten before the electorate would trust another female? If it's supposed to be about their ability to run the country, and not what's between their legs, why the difference? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sexist. I don't even vote, as I believe all politicians are just mouths with suits and don't do anything. But the fact remains, that she was our first female PM, and she destroyed the country, so there will not be another for the foreseeable future, because we still have the memory of what she did to her own country, saying she herself came from a working class background, from some bakery, or whatever. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 21:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People didn't like Gordon Brown very much, but would they refuse to vote for another candidate named Brown just because of his name? Or another Scot just because of his nationality? Or another person born in February? Or another graduate of the University of Edinburgh? Of course not (times 4). Why are those sorts of things rightly considered irrelevant to governmental capacity, while sex is not? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Michael Foot, Neil Kinnock, Militant tendency and Arthur Scargill for some of the background reading. --Dweller (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The left's response to Thatcher was Tony Blair. μηδείς (talk) 03:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only an American would call Tony Blair left-wing. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 07:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Tony Blair article indicates he identified as "left of center", so he considered himself to be at least somewhere on that wing. However, working hand-and-foot with Bush on invading Iraq doesn't really sound like a typical liberal approach - more like a Neo-Con. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What he said isn't relevant, how he acted is. Blair wasn't with Labour, he was with New Labour, completely different beast from the Labour in the ~~Witch's~~ Thatcher's years. Indeed far more 'neo-con' and not 'liberal', although both of those terms have very little meaning outside of the US. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 07:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd tend to agree with both sides. The reaction of much of the Left eventually was to move to the Right. But you're both missing the point of the question, which is that this move to Blairism came during Major's premiership, after Labour managed somehow to lose the 1992 election and after the sad death of John Smith in 1994. The OP question was about "When Margaret Thatcher was carrying out her policies in the 1980's". --Dweller (talk) 11:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For some satirical insight into how we thought of Thatcher's government back in those days, I would suggest watching Spitting Image (available on YouTube). The only good thing she did was allow my dad (a trade union leader) to organize strikes, so I was able to get more time with him. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 11:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In Liverpool, organising others not to work is considered morally superior to organising others to work. 86.144.114.188 (talk) 11:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The evolution of the left began during Thatcher's term, not during Major's. Blair's election was the result. This is paralleled in the US where Jimmy Carter's defeat by Reagan led ultimately to Bill Clinton winning as a pragmatically rebranded "New Democrat". Blair is a much more historically contextual answer than "protests". μηδείς (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be confused with a New Democrat, of course. --65.94.51.62 (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Kinnock's floundering over Clause IV gives the lie to any notion of Blairism predating, erm, Tony Blair. As I stated above, the crackdown on Militant is apposite for the OP, but it's hard to credit Kinnock (or even more so Foot) with really evolving the left in reaction to Thatcherism. --Dweller (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We all seem to have forgotten Derek Hatton. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 17:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dweller linked to him above (Militant tendency#Militant in Liverpool), and I certainly haven't forgotten being "sacked" by him (along with all other employees of Liverpool City Council) when he hired a fleet of taxis to deliver redundancy notices to the entire workforce. Nor have I forgotten how schools were starved of funding during those years (-- the blame was probably shared). Dbfirs 21:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking personally, the women of the British Left responded to the challenges of Thatcherism by organising themselves and caring for the families of striking trades unionists (when we weren't trying to keep our own families together). Some of us also left our families and protested against nuclear weapons. It brought about lasting friendships and respect borne out of adversity. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher came to power after the ghastly winter of discontent, when James Callaghan, the Prime Minister, completely lost control of the Trade Unions. That was such a shattering event - Leicester Square turned into a huge open-air rubbish dump; the churches being measured up to be used as emergency morgues, the sheer selfishness of the unions - that there was a national acceptance that things had to change. Comparable events in subsequent years were John Major's Black Wednesday and Gordon Brown's banking collapse - both events of such ineptitude that they have put their respective parties out of power for a generation and act as a poisoned chalice to their political successors. Labour's response to Thatcher was, firstly, to move to the left in the 1983 election - the manifesto waspishly described by Gerald Kaufman as 'the longest suicide note in history' - and in so moving - under the bizarre figure of Michael Foot, who looked more like an animated corpse than someone able to run the country - managed to split itself, with right-wingers moving into the SDP. Thatcher was helped by leftie headbangers such as Militant Tendency and their entryist tactics in relation to the Labour party, and also by the successful conclusion to the Falklands War.

After the 1983 election, which Thatcher won with an increased majority, Arthur Scargill decided to try to bring down the government. His refusal to hold a strike ballot and dictatorial management style managed to split the strikers, with the more sensible lot branching off to form the Union of Democratic Mineworkers. Given the violence on the picket lines, the Labour party found it hard to offer robust political support. Disputes such as Wapping were also politically difficult to support, not only given the violence but also the defence of 'Spanish practices'. Conservatives and other opponents of these strikes were able to paint them as a defence of well-paid privilege and a Luddite-like opposition to technological progress. The Labour party was now run by Neil Kinnock, who was unable to impose control on his own party (Tony Benn challenging for control). He was widely derided as 'the Welsh windbag' for his overblown and long-winded oratory. The other major political issue of the time was the stationing of US nuclear missiles on British soil which, with unerring brilliance, Kinnock managed to oppose with suggesting any credible alternative. Throughout this period, as the abuses of the Trade Unions were being systematically dismantled under Norman Tebbit and his three great Trade Union Acts (1980, 1982, and 1984), the economy was being deregulated (most obviously in 'Big Bang' and through privatisation), and growing strongly. So it lasted until Thatcher's own defenestration in 1992.

Some of Thatcher's policies - in particular mass privatisations and the sale of Council houses - had the effect of cutting the ground from under the feet of her political opponents. Is it a false memory, or do I really remember stupid old Roy Hattersley trying to persuade people that Council ownership was better because everyone had the same colour front door, and that created a pleasing streetscape? Unfortunately for him, most people decided that they would prefer to own (and paint) their own front door, not someone else's. The demonstrable success of the economy, and the rising living standards that followed, rendered whole swathes of the opposition's policy pointless: nobody (sensible) wanted a return to nationalised industry and a defense of Trade Union privilege; the Falklands War and threat from the Soviet Union made the policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament a minority enthusiasm. Ultimately, the opposition was forced to accept that its policy positions had been overtaken by events, and they were quietly dropped, firstly by Kinnock and later by Blair (Clause IV). Thatcher's legacy has been to create a free-market consensus, and her opposition has been reduced to a party appealing to public-sector privilege and welfare recipients, finding much of its mass support in the ranks of the immigrants that it allowed in between 1997 and 2010. 109.149.28.142 (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean the 1983 election. RomanSpa (talk) 01:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On a purely technical issue, Scargill's opponents were the Union of Democratic Mineworkers. I'm not sure if the above redlink should be redirected, but we do have an article on them. Tevildo (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, apologies. Edits made. What a great Prime Minister she was, and what a useless lot have come after.

Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive, But to be young was very heaven! 109.149.28.142 (talk) 06:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answers everyone, I have enjoyed reading this. Aside from Parliamentary and Extra-Parliamentary action, were there any other 'public' responses to the challenges of Thatcherism, aside from Red Wedge? --Roadinffrog (talk) 13:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although Derek Hatton gets a mention above, nobody has mentioned Militant Tendency, a left wing faction within the Labour Party, which made many moderate voters think twice about voting them. It wasn't until Kinnock had sorted that one out that Labour became electable (in my view). Alansplodge (talk) 13:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the IP did mention Militant Tendency. Nil Einne (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, Dweller did about halfway down. Sorry. Alansplodge (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I see missed Dweller's link. I only noticed Dbfirs more indirect link (to #Militant in Liverpool), as well as IP 109.149.28.142's. Nil Einne (talk) 16:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to your supplementary question, which I hope that I understand correctly, my contemporaneous impressions were the lifting of a deep sense of national decline and malaise - especially after the Falklands War - and increasingly a national sense of optimism and opportunity. The church produced its fatuous report 'Faith in the City', the BBC refused to produce Ian Curteis' 'Falklands Play', which it had commissioned, on the widely suspected grounds that it was too favourable a portrayal of Thatcher, and it ended the decade with a veiled attack on Thatcher in a series of 'Doctor Who', (see also: this ) which no-one noticed as the programme had been going downhill ever since Tom Baker left, and its audience had evaporated. Various pinkoes paraded their right-on credentials by criticising Thatcher, but it made no difference as she won her elections with thumping majorities. 86.144.114.188 (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely Brilliant commentary, IP 109 / 86. I always wondered why McCoy seemed so fey. I never suspected the politics, but I can enjoy the irony that the yobs running the show (into the ground) lost their jobs the year the wall came down. μηδείς (talk) 01:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Mind you, the producer, John Nathan-Turner, could not be described as a natural Conservative and seems to have had his mind on other things most of the time. 86.144.114.188 (talk) 16:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]