Lady Thatcher

Re: Lady Thatcher

Virginia Campbell — Sat, 20 Apr 2013 14:34:56 GMT

I like this:

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]"Governments have no money-only what they take from people"[/quote]

and this:

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]"The trouble with socialists is they eventually run out of other peoples money"[/quote]

and also in answer to an interviewer's question:

"Don't ask me how I feel, ask me what I think"

Re: Lady Thatcher

Clive Ansell — Sat, 20 Apr 2013 11:38:44 GMT

This looks like it may be a good read, reflecting post Thatcher Britain

Re: Lady Thatcher

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 12:45:25 GMT

Favourite quote from the funeral today, by a BBC correspondent interviewing a young man in the crowd outside St Paul's:

"Of course, you weren't really alive when Lady Thatcher was in power"

Glad to see the generally respectful behaviour of the crowd.

Re: Lady Thatcher

Thomas Johnson — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 14:43:18 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

[quote user="Thomas Johnson"]with apparently very little intervention over the preceeding years to try and improve it.[/quote]

What did it need? Better teachers? Better headmaster? Better governors? More money for basic facilities? More money for shiny gadgets? Better pupils? Better parents? What was the local authority doing?

[/quote]

I have to admit that as a young teenager when it happened I don't know the answer to most of those questions, but I remember getting the impression that while we at the grammar school, under a very good headmaster who understood how to get the best out of the education system, were getting new buildings and renovation of older buildings, the high school looked more and more run down over several years before it closed. Who should have intervened? Probably all of the above.

Re: Lady Thatcher

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 12:36:11 GMT

[quote user="Thomas Johnson"]with apparently very little intervention over the preceeding years to try and improve it.[/quote]

Re: Lady Thatcher

Gerry Henry — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 09:34:05 GMT

Little intervention by whom ? Parents ?

Re: Lady Thatcher

Thomas Johnson — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 08:57:01 GMT

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]

Thomas - the answer above seems to have covered it.

However, with respect, not all children want to, or are able to, follow an academic route. Many parents never encourage their children in that direction. Expecting any government to make all schools equal is IMHO pointless. All children should have access to a good basic education, and hopefully that is a goal the current government will continue to pursue. I do believe, though, that there should be a separate 'higher stream' option for those children/parents that WANT it. In an ideal world, having that option available to you shouldn't be based on financial status, as it is currently. My daughter is in an independant school, class size 18 compared to 35 in the state system. There really is no comparison.

[/quote]

Thank you Bob and Gillian for your replies. I grew up in Dartford and in 1990 went to a state grammar school, and I did very well out of it, but while I was at the grammar school our local high school was closed as a failing school, with apparently very little intervention over the preceeding years to try and improve it.

Re: Lady Thatcher

Gillian Mostyn — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 20:03:10 GMT

Thomas - the answer above seems to have covered it.

This is probably not a politically correct comment, but no amount of political intervention would have improved the high schools in Rochdale 30 years ago. A high percentage of children had English as a second language which made life pretty difficult for the teachers. The teachers had to, understandably, focus their efforts on bringing everyone to a basic level of achievement - anyone who reached that level received very little attention as they were felt to be 'doing very well'. Added to that was the underlying culture where anyone who tried to do well at school was bullied/ridiculed by their peers, and you get a very difficult learning environment. You would have to be a very strong and determined person to come through the system with high grades. (I may not have gone to the schools, but I had a sister and many friends who did.)

Re: Lady Thatcher

Bob Russell — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 17:53:25 GMT

From the Guardian:

Thatcher's education secretary from 1986-89, Kenneth Baker, transformed the state school system, creating a proto-market that is being enthusiastically embraced and developed by one of his successors, Michael Gove. Baker insisted that attainment levels be made public, allowing a "league table" of schools to emerge. At the same time, he instructed schools to accept all applicants, local or otherwise, unless already full.

The choice agenda was born: parents could, in theory if not always in practice, decide which school their child would go to. Local authority control of education was also much-reduced by the Education Act of 1988, which gave autonomy over budgets and appointments to heads and school governors.

Gove has deepened that autonomy with his academy programme and added the further option of free schools.

Re: Lady Thatcher

Thomas Johnson — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 17:29:49 GMT

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]

Personally speaking, I wouldn't be where I am now without the system she led. I had a financially assisted place to attend grammar school, allowing me to get away from the dismal state schools in Rochdale, and then I received a grant to attend university. Thanks Maggie!

[/quote]

I understand that a lot of what Margaret Thatcher did needed to be done, dealing with the crippling power of the unions for example, and I can understand why you are grateful for the very good education you received, but what did her government do for the 'dismal state schools in Rochdale' that the majority of your neighbours would have had to attend?

Re: Lady Thatcher

Bob Russell — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 15:39:42 GMT

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]

What I don't get is the anger and venom being directed at a single person. Last time I looked, we live in a democracy. She may have been the leader, and a strong one at that, but she was simply the head of her political party. If her party and the rest of the country didn't want her, she wouldn't have stood for, and won, three general elections!

[/quote]

The anger and venom is towards a figurehead not the individual. People seem to need someone to blame and it seems to be 'Maggie'. It all seems to be a bit of a nonsense to me as she was in power decades ago.

Much of the present mess can be attributed to a certain Mr Brown but he is Labour so therefore not so easy to vilify!

I hope these sad people do not disrupt the funeral. There are many, many people that have nothing but respect for what she did. These people will just stand quietly!!

Re: Lady Thatcher

Gillian Mostyn — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 12:37:41 GMT

Re: Lady Thatcher

Bob Russell — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 11:30:26 GMT

[quote user="Clive Ansell"]

Welcome back Wynne, not seen you on here in ages

Whether you call it socialism or not doesn't really matter, but one thing left in the aftermath of Lady Thatcher was/is massive unemployment and the growing culture of welfare dependency that we are still blighted with. There are now families of 3rd and 4th generations where no family member has been employed. Added to which statistics and figures were altered by moving people from unemployment to disability benefits. I did a brief locum in a south wales ex mining town where a man in a pub commented that local unemployment was only 5% but 95% were on disability allowance, either way almost no one worked .

[/quote]

I don't disagree with this but many of these jobs were in industries plagued by bad practice rendering them noncompetitive. Most would have gone anyway but perhaps some may have been saved had there been realism on both sides.

I was watching an old TV programme from my teens 'The Chinese Detective'! To unload a single container took six men!!

Mrs Thatcher had the guts to accept the inevitable but the unions did not.

It is too easy to vilify one individual and to forget what a mess weak leadership and bully unions left the country in.

Oh and welcome back!

Re: Lady Thatcher

Thomas Johnson — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 10:54:21 GMT

[quote user="Clive Ansell"]

Added to which statistics and figures were altered by moving people from unemployment to disability benefits. I did a brief locum in a south wales ex mining town where a man in a pub commented that local unemployment was only 5% but 95% were on disability allowance, either way almost no one worked .

[/quote]

The figures given on Radio 4 last week were 700,000 people on incapacity benefit when she came to power, and 2.7 million people on incapacity benefit when she left power.

Re: Lady Thatcher

Clive Ansell — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 10:37:52 GMT

Welcome back Wynne, not seen you on here in ages

Re: Lady Thatcher

Hannah Wynne Richards — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 10:15:32 GMT

Lady Thatcher was both a role model and a heroine to me Those who are too young to remember the 70s have no idea how bad it used to be-union bully boys running the country-and making our goods unafordable due to excessive wage demands and poor productivity 25% inflation Britain the "sick man of Europe "

I really really admire her She is easily the best prime minister of my lifetime

So many of the things she said I totally agree with

"Governments have no money-only what they take from people"

"The trouble with socialists is they eventually run out of other peoples money"

Tony Blair-not fit to clean her boots

Wynne

Re: Lady Thatcher

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 09:59:11 GMT

[quote user="Mark Rowland"]

I wish you would delete posts on another thread. Really Arlo I dont like this forum this time of year (RCVS elections). Its very offputting and If you are trying to get new posters to post without fear of reprisal, allowing the site to be turned over to rantings and veterinary establishment slating is hardly the way to do it imo.

[/quote]

I don't like it either. I've always been loathe to intervene too heavily in what is, after all, the democratic process.

Having said that, perhaps common sense should prevail. Time for room 101.

Re: Lady Thatcher

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 09:55:24 GMT

[quote user="Mark Hedberg"]Too bad, Evelyn's post was a masterpiece. :)[/quote]

I know. But I have to be strict about the anon account, and I guess if everyone knows they'll get deleted if they reply to a wrong use of the anon account, they won't reply in the first place, which would be a good thing!

Re: Lady Thatcher

Mark Rowland — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 09:54:00 GMT

Re: Lady Thatcher

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 09:52:11 GMT

[quote user="Liz white"]( That was easier to read with the paragraphs in place)[/quote]

Fixed it for you

Re: Lady Thatcher

Mark Hedberg — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 09:51:51 GMT

Too bad, Evelyn's post was a masterpiece. :)

Re: Lady Thatcher

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 09:47:02 GMT

I've deleted an anonymous post, because the anon account is only for use when seeking advice from peers about something for which there would be obvious reasons for wanting to retain anonymity. It is not for political or economic debate.

I also deleted replies to anonymous, as they become nonsensical without the context of the anon post.

Re: Lady Thatcher

Bob Russell — Sun, 14 Apr 2013 20:15:29 GMT

But don't forget that one of the men has decided to get his beer paid for by the richer men as a lifestyle choice! Presumably he would steal his beer if nobody paid for it because it was his 'right' to drink beer!

Re: Lady Thatcher

Liz w — Sun, 14 Apr 2013 10:33:06 GMT

( That was easier to read with the paragraphs in place)

Re: Lady Thatcher

Liz w — Sun, 14 Apr 2013 10:30:34 GMT

And talking of benefits....

THE UK TAX SYSTEM EXPLAINED IN BEER

Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: -

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7.
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. “Since you are all such good customers”, he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody’s share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage. They decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a 100% saving).
The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33% saving).
The seventh man now paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28% saving).
The eighth man now paid £9 instead of £12 (a 25% saving).
The ninth man now paid £14 instead of £18 (a 22% saving).
And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16% saving).

Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free.

But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got £1 out of the £20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got £10″

“Yes, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved £1 too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me”

“That’s true” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get £10 back when I only got £2? The wealthy get all the breaks”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor”. The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next week the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important –they didn’t have enough money between all of them to pay for even half of the bill.

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier."

David R. Kamerschen,
Ph.D. Professor of Economics