This House believes Thatcher was right...

[Odysseus]

I'd just like to ask about what 'this house' believed she was right about? And how did the debate go?

Personally, I think she is a disgusting, tyrant supporting lunatic and the world of politics is much better off without her.

Anyone care to defend the following -

Her support of Pinochet
Her removal of free milk from schools
The Poll tax



[hr]Walk into the bright lights of sorrow, oh drink a bit of wine and we both might go tommorow, my love...

[Eliot Wilson]

[s]Odysseus wrote on 10:22, 25th Mar 2005:
Anyone care to defend the following -

Her removal of free milk from schools


Happy to. Budgetary constraints at the DES meant something had to go, and the options were free school milk or the Open University (then still in its infancy). Which would you rather she had saved?

[hr]
Bill and Ted beat the Grim Reaper at Twister

Bill: "You played very well, Death, especially with your totally heavy Death robes."

Death: "Don't patronise me."

[Aelius Theon]

Anyone care to defend the following -

Her removal of free milk from schools

Happy to. Budgetary constraints at the DES meant something had to go, and the options were free school milk or the Open University (then still in its infancy). Which would you rather she had saved?


The OU, obviously. Otherwise I'd be without a job, as you indeed know.

[md25]

That was the first debate I've ever been to and I thought it was great fun. The SSP guy was the best speaker there, he really knew how to play the crowd.

[David Bean]

[s]Odysseus wrote on 10:22, 25th Mar 2005:
Anyone care to defend the following -

Her support of Pinochet

The Munich Agreement Defence: the actions took place before certain important facts were known, and would not have been taken otherwise.

Her removal of free milk from schools

Done.

The Poll tax

Ah, now things are getting interesting. Okay, if you believe that one function of taxation and expenditure should be the redistribution of wealth, you hold a legitimate viewpoint. Not one I would agree with, but a legitimate one nonetheless. However, even if you do believe in redistribution, why should it take place at the local council level? With spiralling costs, minimal service provision and an overall lack of accountability, local councils would be the last ones I'd trust to go about any sort of social or economic engineering project. No, notwithstanding my longrun vision of a national federation of small, devolved administrative regions (which we just don't have at the moment), in my view local councils should be concentrating on providing lean, efficient services to the populations they serve. If deemed legitimate at all, wealth redistribution should be dealt with on a national, not local level, for these reasons and also for others including economic disparity across the country.

My second premise is that council services are provided on a roughly equal basis across the community (in fact, if anything they provide more to those with lower incomes, through support services). So if we accept that local councils are not the place for wealth redistribution and that all council taxpayers receive equal services, the conclusion is obvious: everyone should pay the same. That's what the poll tax was - and it's just the same as a hall subscription. Or to put it another way,

Equal service provision - redistributive motives = equal charge.

QED.

[hr]
"For what shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?- Matthew 16:26

[Aelius Theon]

[s]md25 wrote on 11:10, 25th Mar 2005:
That was the first debate I've ever been to and I thought it was great fun. The SSP guy was the best speaker there, he really knew how to play the crowd.


I too thought it was great fun. Shame the Convenor was for the most part inside a bottle of Tanqueray otherwise he might concur.

The after-dinner speech made at The Balaka by the second prop was outrageously offensive and has cut me to the quick.

[Evil Knevil]

[s]Odysseus wrote on 10:22, 25th Mar 2005:

Anyone care to defend the following -

Her support of Pinochet
Her removal of free milk from schools
The Poll tax


Or,
The bombing of Libya
3 Million
Clause 28
1990 Prevention of Terrorism Act
Increasing regressive taxation
The internal market in the NHS
Destroying local council autonomy
Ending the GLC
A *fantastic* effort at Race Relations.

&
Bros?

[NeilSJFC1884]

Sorry, couldnt let this just slide....

Thatcher started ALL the problems we see today. She was the one who started the myth were still given that we can have spending without taxation. She was the one who really gave us "stealth taxes" like no other. That tory government was the one which reduced income tax but raised Vat(from 8% to current day 17.5%) and started the fuel escalator. These taxes are regressive and affect the worst off finacally in society than income tax does.

Which brings me nicely to my next point- Poll tax. Any party that brings a tax out that takes absolutely no consideration of ability to pay, cannot in my opinion be a party of the people. The fact that she used Scotland as a "guinea pig" for this does not really endear me anymore to her (Sidenote:we remember you michael "poll tax" howard).
Charles Kennedy (then SDP party memeber i think) called a margret thacter "that great Scottish nationalist" as she united everybody in Scotland against her. She really didnt really care to much for Scotland and northern England as thats wasnt where she got her majority from. She also had the gall to come up and preach to the general assmebly about morals, the f*ckin general assembly no less. The whole tory philosophy seemed to be based keeping the interest rate down, no matter how much unemployment it cause (3 million, i think?). Just as well that tory government did so well economicly, for example Black Wednesday, Sky high interest rates (17% i think at one point) and mass unemployment. Indeed thank you Mrs Thatcter.
Worst of all, is the philosophy she gave us, "no such thing as society" and the like. It is all self-help, self-interest, in short greed. She taught us that, to quote a tory mate of mine, "Social responsablity is a myth" a hark back to the ages were we believed all the poor are poor because they're lazy and that 99% are all just scrounging off the dole.
Ricky Tominson, star of The Royle family, claimed that "a generation of scousers will dance on maggie thatchers grave". Better leave room for me.


Even her son is bloody evil!!!

[exnihilo]

I'm not getting into the Poll Tax debate, but I will just say that I'd imagine she didn't so much "have the gall" to "preach" to the General Assembly as she was invited to speak at the General Assembly. She hardly gatecrashed and lectured them.

[Aelius Theon]

[s]exnihilo wrote on 14:39, 25th Mar 2005:
I'm not getting into the Poll Tax debate, but I will just say that I'd imagine she didn't so much "have the gall" to "preach" to the General Assembly as she was invited to speak at the General Assembly. She hardly gatecrashed and lectured them.


Hello, Mr Joss!

Wilson and I have just had a very pleasant discussion that didn't involve Thatcher at all while we were busy putting away a bottle of red over a rushed lunch at The Imperial Hotel/Bridges/The Lizard Lounge/Cidsin (BTW is that a Michael Jackson fantasy?)/The Oak Rooms - call it what you will depending on how long you've been here.

Just goes to show that for all of you nobbers (note the spelling please, Miss Laura - who has just singularly blanked me at lunch in said Oak Rooms) who weren't even born during Thatcherism, let alone voted in an election in which she stood, us old people have managed to shake off her legacy, good or evil, and move on.

Meanwhile, I suggest we have a thread in which we discuss how it takes the cheese-eating scrotum boy in The Oak Rooms over an hour to take and deliver Mr Wilson's and my order. If that place ever works out how to employ a yah with more brains than her lapdog has between its legs, I'll be an arse-munching fudge-nudging (that one's for you, Ralph) chestnut monkey.

[pelopidas]

Black Wednesday - Was the fault of the ERM as you all know. Entry into the ERM was not only supported but applauded by both Labour and Liberal Democrats. Thatcher was pushed into this against her will by John Major and Geoffrey Howe. The timing of departure from the ERM has absolutely nothing to do with Thatcher, she wasn't even an MP at the time.

In Major's autobiography he blames the German Bundesbank. Which due to the costs of re-unification rose the discount rate by 2.75%, this was an eventuality that no one had considered. Simultaneouly the Fed lowered interest rates reducing the $ price, money was leaving Wall St for Frankfurt and pushing up the DM. The UK economy required an interest rate cut but because of the rising DM had to push interest rates up. Many countries suffered similarly across Europe and complained to the Bundesbank and also Helmut Kohl. The response to this was 0.75% increase to 8.75% interest rates for the DM. For the £ to leave the ERM at the first sign of pressure would have reduced the credibility of the govts anti inflationary policy. The £ had to stay in the ERM. by 21st August 18 central banks were trying to prop the dollar up, partially to stop further DM rate rises. the head of the Bundesbank Dr. Schlesinger was giving interviews stating that a devaluation of the £ was inevitable - forcing £ interest rates up in responsse to increased market pressure. Eventually the £ was forced out the ERM after spending £15bn in one day to keep the £ in the ERM.

The Bundesbank stuffed the Italians and the French too. The decision to leave was taken in agreement with the Governor and Deputy Governors of the Bank of England, and was considered purely on economic grounds. It was however at this point that the 1997 General Election was lost, and the time when Major lost the support of his backbenches.
Whether the £ left the ERM at 10% interest rates or 12% (pledged to rise to 15% at one point) makes no difference - the economic policy was in tatters and due to external factors.
Given that both Labour and the Lib Dems were in favour of the ERM (more so than the Tories) they would have suffered exactly the fate in government. The economy was by 1997 extremely healthy and in a better state than it is today -though public perception has to catch up with economic reality.

[Laura]

[s]Aelius Theon wrote on 15:06, 25th Mar 2005:


Just goes to show that for all of you nobbers (note the spelling please, Miss Laura - who has just singularly blanked me at lunch in said Oak Rooms)



I said hi and waved at you both! Shocked! I SO did not ignore you!

(I also can't spell anything, as well you know from having read some of the articles I foolishly penned for The Mitre)

[David Bean]

[s]NeilSJFC1884 wrote on 14:06, 25th Mar 2005:
Sorry, couldnt let this just slide....

Thatcher started ALL the problems we see today. She was the one who started the myth were still given that we can have spending without taxation. She was the one who really gave us "stealth taxes" like no other. That tory government was the one which reduced income tax but raised Vat(from 8% to current day 17.5%) and started the fuel escalator. These taxes are regressive and affect the worst off finacally in society than income tax does.


Actually, those taxes are only regressive if you choose to assume that those with lower incomes spend an equal proportion on VAT-rated goods and fuel as those with higher incomes, which is demonstrably not the case.

Also, your argument about the poll tax was nicely rhetorical, but I noticed no attempts to engage with the arguments in its favour that I'd already brought up.

And Pelopidas is quite right about the ERM problem: the notion of a fixed exchange rate is flawed in principle, and the real mistake was going in in the first place or thinking that it would be a good idea.

[hr]
"For what shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?- Matthew 16:26

[RJ Covino]

[s]Aelius Theon wrote on 15:06, 25th Mar 2005:
(that one's for you, Ralph)

Much obliged. I think... Though slightly let down by the non-invite to a boozy lunch at Bridges that all the world and their sister seems to have been at.

[Al]

"The Imperial Hotel/Bridges/The Lizard Lounge/Cidsin (BTW is that a Michael Jackson fantasy?)/The Oak Rooms - call it what you will depending on how long you've been here."

You've missed an "Argyle (House) Hotel" from that list.

[hr]Life is too important to be taken seriously.

[Aelius Theon]

[s]RJ Covino wrote on 16:05, 25th Mar 2005:
[s]Aelius Theon wrote on 15:06, 25th Mar 2005:[i]
(that one's for you, Ralph)

Much obliged. I think... Though slightly let down by the non-invite to a boozy lunch at Bridges that all the world and their sister seems to have been at.
[/i]

Au contraire, mon cher Ralph. Wilson and I were indulging in our usual mid-work/mid-teaching Friday lunch of embittered muttering and quiet ranting, with our regular bottle of garnacha. The lovely Laura who apparently waved at me (in a kind of a "Get away from me you pervert" stylee) was dining separately, alas.

It goes without saying you are welcome to join us at future Friday lunches. We missed you at The Balaka last night. Sadly, Mr Joss had to return to Glesga for the banter.

[Miz Manda]

Who won the debate?

[Stuart]

The motion passed by 90 votes to 82 (plus some pesky liberals). Hurrah! My faith in St Andrews has been restored.

[Stuart]

The motion passed by 90 votes to 82 (plus some pesky liberals). Hurrah! My faith in St Andrews has been restored.

[RJ Covino]

[s]Stuart wrote on 18:14, 25th Mar 2005:
The motion passed by 90 votes to 82 (plus some pesky liberals). Hurrah! My faith in St Andrews has been restored.


The capacity of Lower Parliament Hall, when packed to the gills and people are being turned away, is 160.

There were empty chairs.

You do the maths.