Dear Bill I took some time to calm down and consider my answer. Remember, this isn't theory for me. Thatcher's policies hurt people I love. That hurt continues today. I'm no fan of strikes, 3 day work weeks or inflation either. But to attribute these to the Unions and their resolution to Thatcher's policies is inaccurate. You refer me to Conservative thinkers. I'll refer you to Owen Jones writing this morning in the Independent. It seems to me inflation afflicted the West generally during this period. It certainly marred Carter's Presidency. That cannot be attributed to the UK's Unions. It had a good deal more to do with external circumstances not the least of which was the revolution in Oil prices. Nor do I think the Thatcher formula of controlling inflation at the cost of significant un and underemployment was a helpful answer. One extreme doesn't justify another. Every problem has a solution. Every solution has a problem. Thatchers' were legion. She sacrificed half a nation to provide for some of the nation. She sacrificed the North to take care of the interests of the South East. We had a model that worked better in the US than Thatcher's (or Reagan's). It was a model followed by Eisenhower, Marshall, Nixon and Clinton. It was a model rejected by Reagan, Thatcher, W and Romney. It wasn't perfect. No system is. But under Clinton the economy grew, living standards improved, the debt was paid down following the advice of economists Osborne and Cameron specifically reject and Thatcher would have rejected as she did the advice of Heseltine. I don't embrace extreme philosophies. It was Richard Nixon who said, we are all Keynesians now. If only it were true.

I have not personally celebrated her death nor would I. I don't celebrate death. I do understand those who do, why they do. They are not the few you think although they are not the majority of the country. Moreover not everyone who criticizes her legacy celebrates her death. Even the Prime Minister when he said she saved the country acknowledged how divisive a figure she was. And many balked at her canonization this past week, including several members of Parliament, some in very strong terms. It is wrong to characterize them as those who lost goodies that they did not deserve. They include people who for generations worked to make Britain great, people who helped win the Falklands War you trumpet. And while we are being sensitive about Mrs. Thatcher they include my relatives as I said, one of whom was an engineer who contributed to the war effort. While you point out her election victories let me point out it was senior members of her own Party who concluded she and her policies had become too toxic to let it continue. And don't forget this discord has been brought to fever pitch by the decision of the Government to give her an extraordinary "not a state funeral" state funeral at a significant cost at a time they are cutting the poorest of the poor. The Times poll this morning reflects well how the British public who have had to live with Thatcher think of her. 20% think Thatcher was a great Prime Minister. 26% think she was good. That's 46% -- not a majority. 35% think she was poor to terrible. 10% said she was just average. You might consider the views of those who actually had to live with her legacy especially the views of those whose lives have never recovered. But my point is not to evaluate Margaret Thatcher or to pillory her. She wasn't a monster although she was wrong. Margaret Thatcher the person should be allowed to rest in peace. Those who loved her should be permitted to grieve in peace. However her policies are fair game. They were not good for the country. Her policies which you support did not do what you say they did. Over 20 years on the policies you cite as having improved the UK have in my opinion turned on the UK disastrously. Yes, they were not the sole cause. But they pass both the "but for" and "substantial factor" tests. But then, you know that's how I see it.

Bill, seems to me instead of in effect punishing all recipients for the small scale fraud or redesigning the system around someone's nebulous and subjective standards of 28% could have worked we think without examining them the issue is affordability not fraud. We are struggling to pay for the system. Let's not put that down to bad people but bad economics. As you know, I believe those economics have been going bad for quite a long time. It is a non partisan evaluation. It even has been moving that direction longer than the West has been following my particular bete noir, Neo Liberalism. I think we should put our creative energies into resuscitating our economies and/or adjusting our grants rather than beating people up for following a perfectly ok system for determining need or by fine tuning the system based on the standards of what may actually be a tin ear.

In short, yes and yes. I do want to see rigorous standards and rigorous standards are already in place, one reason I distrust the report. In the UK medical practices is tightly regulated by NICE and diagnosis and procedure is far more confined and rationed than in the US. Every indication I have is NICE does err but it errs on the side of "suck it up." In the US I know several who practice in the area of social security. It will take some convincing to convince me the standards are too lax. The issue of "truly need" bothers me Bill. So it is ok for people to need so long as by someone's view it isn't a "true" need? Where's the science in that. I have described functionally what I see as a rigorous system. It is my understanding that is the system in place in the US. Perhaps what the US could use is a NICE and a NHS, but I am not going there without the PEER review etc. Just way too much politics disguised as think tank doing PR.

Nope Bill. Isn't implying something I did not say backwards from what I did say something of a logical fallacy? I am not clear from what you have said the RAND study so much found they were NOT disabled At ALL, or the study concluded there was work they could in theory undertake despite their disability. I am not at all clear RAND concluded they were inaccurately diagnosed, but rather that had they not be diagnosed RAND believes they could have performed work of some type. IF there IS work available AND someone is able to work without exacerbating an existing disability and found to be so after full evaluation by a panel of competent physicians who have actually examined the person involved I agree they should work. My point simply was, those considerations aside, speculating someone could have worked at some kind of employment is not the same thing as providing them with a job. But under such distinctions in the UK people have both been cut from benefits AND not been found employment. That can't be right, can it?

Some Questions Bill: 1) Given the un/underemployment rates in the US where are these folks going to find jobs, since the job market is competitive why do we want them taking jobs from new entrants into the job market and who is going to to hire RAND's 28 percentage point higher group of persons now classified disabled? 2) Did Board Certified Physicians in a study subject to PEER Review make this estimate after having examined actual persons? 3) What is the actually proven rate of fraud in the programme? Similar "studies" have been in the UK to justify what is happening here but fraud rates are down around 0.7% and physicians disagree that disabled persons have been inappropriately placed. No doubt you have the answers to all these questions but one has to be extra careful about "studies" in this time of highly leveraged PR and reckless ideology. Whatever any study claims to say by whomever claims it, Left, Right, Center, Neo Liberal, Socialist or Conservative I want to see the methodology, the credentials of those who performed the study and the PEER review of the methodology, analysis and conclusions before I give them any credence --- particularly since there are no jobs anyone. I know qualified lawyers and engineers without physical issues who can't find employment in the United States.

Hi Bill I will let Robin speak for himself. I chose the analogy to Social Security specifically because Incapacity Benefit/ESA is shared financing just like US Social Security. The UK also has Welfare as that term is used in the US, but the issue before Parliament addressed in my piece is Incapacity Benefit/ESA. Robin I think is speaking more broadly about the interrelatedness of economics.

Thank you so much RevPaulCA for the additional point. I am sorry I am unable to publish the URL to the blog you cite.

Yes, Sam, you're right. Thank you. The official title for the organization I called Bureau is Office for National Statistics.

D Sugg2010 ... Thanks. Some of us have challenged some aspects in the courts. I have been successful representing an individual who formerly received Incapacity Benefit. The range of legal challenges I hurled was sufficiently daunting DWP did not even reply. Consequently the Admin Judge upheld the appeal. A pity really. I was ready to take it to Appeals Court to set precedent. No doubt why no response. A key legal issue is the seizing of vested incapacity benefit entitlement. The law in the UK differs from the US but in the US this is like the Social Security into which workers paid for a lifetime. In the case with which I was helping the government action ignored the fact the claimant's entitlement was vested and had been earned over a lifetime. I think we are just in the early stages. Legal challenges take years.

Perhaps Tony it is because they realize the arguments against Leveson's proposal are phantom straw men.

TYVM