All hail Maggie, Queen of Witches, Bitches and other cool women

---

by Vix
(and probably enough sandals too, which is what I originally typed )

---

LOL! That's the Liberals

Cat: whichever way you slice it, before the leadership election Maggie called the shots in the Conservative Party. After the first ballot it became evident that her fate was no longer entirely in her own hands: she had lost that level of control. She was winning, but she was wounded. Initially she declared she would fight on, but after a rethink issued this statement:

---

Having consulted widely among my colleagues, I have concluded that the unity of the party and the prospects of victory in a general election would be better served if I stood down to enable cabinet colleagues to enter the ballot for the leadership.

---

In other words, she knew her goose was cooked. Carrying on as leader would weaken the party.

Yes, absolutely Cat, she wasn't outvoted - but she was still defeated. There's more than one way to lose a chess match and this was the equivalent of resignation, not checkmate.

Does anyone seriously believe she would have dropped out of the leadership contest if she thought she could win and carry on as if it hadn't happened?

---

by Tannhauser watching it crumble verrrrrryyyyyy slowwwwwwwwwly around us.

---

And groove in interesting patterns at the same time...

---

by Cat
(quotes)
And (cant remember who posted this but) not winning by a big enough margin is still winning (athletes win, even if they arent 10 seconds faster than their opponents). at the very least it's a draw.

---

That's because the criterion for winning a race is finishing in front of everyone else by whatever margin. Just as the criterion for winning a football match is scoring more goals than the opposition, whether that be one goal more or five.

Simply doing better than everyone else is not always the criterion for winning though.

To win the National Lottery jackpot you need to have all six numbers. Say for example there's one week where noone had all six numbers and you were the only person who had five plus the bonus ball. Do you win the jackpot? No, because although you did better than everybody else, you didn't fit the criterion for winning the jackpot.

Same thing applies to the leadership ballot. Simply scoring more votes than any other candidate was not enough to win. She had to score a certain amount to win (whether that be scoring a certain majority over her nearest rival, or simply obtaining a certain percentage of the vote, I can't remember) and she didn't. She might have done better than anyone else, and she certainly didn't lose, but she didn't meet the criterion for winning, so she didn't win.

We can argue forever as to whether scoring more votes in the first round of voting actually constituted 'winning' the first round of voting as a seperate entity. Personally I feel it didn't, as it gained her nothing - there was no prize for what she achieved.

Either way it's a moot point, as she stood down for reasons that Random pointed out



(Edited by DJ Billy 26/03/2002 12:47)

The Tories under Margaret Thatcher smashed the unions (removing the rights of workers) and brought in the Poll Tax (unfair and ill-conceived) and Student Loans (taxation on learning). I'm still suffering the effects of two out those three policies (I never registered for Poll Tax) and will always resent her and the Tories for them.

But then I'm a bit of a socialist, so I'm not all that fond of Tony Blair either.

---

by RedWitch
and Student Loans (taxation on learning).

---

Student loans were a good thing IMO. If you needed the money to supplement your grant the rate of interest was very low. And if you didn't need the money you could either get one and put it in a savings account (earning more interest than you'd have to pay back) or not take one out at all. I suppose the system might have been different, depending on when you were a student of course

Compared to the system brought in by Labour, with the abolition of grants and the possibility of having to pay up to £1000 in course fees, the system under the Tories seemed quite favourable

(Edited by DJ Billy 27/03/2002 16:08)

---

by Red
Incandenza, you have never hidden the fact that you are probably the staunchest Labour supporter on these boards, and have been known previously to aid the degeneration of political threads such as these, refusing to let them die and reacting aggresively to supporters of other parties, hence my use of the word rabid.

---

I know this is largely irrelevant to the topic, but actually, although I'm pretty familiar with Inc's political views as expressed on these and previous forums, I didn't know he was a Labour supporter. As someone who always was but actually voted Lib Dem in the last general election, it was obvious he didn't vote Tory, but apart from that I wasn't sure.

Anyway, I'm firmly in the anti-Maggie camp myself. I noticed the supporters in this thread didn't actually list any of her achievements while in power, and off-hand I can't think of any. Care to refresh my memory?

Hmm wasn't the pushing through of the "Chunnel" something to do with her? Paving the way for cheap and quick booze runs for christmas parties everywhere..

---

by In a State of Dan
(quotes)

I know this is largely irrelevant to the topic, but actually, although I'm pretty familiar with Inc's political views as expressed on these and previous forums, I didn't know he was a Labour supporter. As someone who always was but actually voted Lib Dem in the last general election, it was obvious he didn't vote Tory, but apart from that I wasn't sure.

Anyway, I'm firmly in the anti-Maggie camp myself. I noticed the supporters in this thread didn't actually list any of her achievements while in power, and off-hand I can't think of any. Care to refresh my memory?

---

http://www.margaretthatcher.com/

I'm sure that will help

---

by Dan
As someone who always was but actually voted Lib Dem in the last general election

---

You voted Lib Dem even after meeting me?
SCORE!

---

by Sweet-Sange
(quotes)
www.margaretthatcher.com/

I'm sure that will help

---

Well, you'd think that wouldn't you. Here's what (all) it has to say in answer to my question:
Her term as Prime Minister saw Britain once again regaining her place on the world stage, the defeat of the trade unions and the emergence of a low tax enterprise economy.

The first, well probably. Although I do feel that much of that place on the world stage, even today, involves doing whatever the USA tells us.
The second, well it's an achievement in that it probably wasn't all that easy to do. Of course, many of those trade unions became irrelevant because the industries they represented were also destroyed. Ho hum.
The third, income tax came down it's true (although personally I'd happily pay more of it for better public services), but I believe it's fairly well-documented that overall taxation actually increased during her time as PM.

This is the sum total of her achievements after 12 years in power? Well colour me unimpressed.

I've been thinking about this some more. I suppose the reason I asked the question is because apart from Cats belief that the poll tax was a good idea, all I've read from the people who admire her is that she was a 'great leader' and a 'role model'.
Now, I'm not entirely sure what the first one means. I also think one could make a case that from a certain point of view various well-know dictators were 'great leaders' (note that I'm not drawing a comparison here...), but I wouldn't necessarily call that a positive thing. For me it would mean that she achieved lots of great things, but so far I'm still unclear as to what these things might be. Indeed many of her best-known policies are ones which I and others criticise the current government for following, but there you go.
As to the 'role model' thing, clearly there's a belief (best expressed by Desire) that her gender is significant. Now I would disagree quite strongly here - there are people of both sexes I consider role models, and I can't imagine her ever being one of them - but perhaps I'm not best-qualified to comment on that...

(Edited by In a State of Dan 28/03/2002 20:04)

Regarding wishing ill health...

There are some people I have no problem wishing ill health on. Even those now dead. I would happily wish a pox on Hitler, Franco, Pot, Amin, or Nixon. I think many people here would feel the same about Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden. So to say you shouldn't wish ill health on someone seems insincere.

As for Maggie, I don't wish a lot for her. I certainly could never feel sorry for her. Not after all the suffering she's caused and the damage she is responsible for.

Regarding her silence...

I will miss what she has to say. Because ever since she resigned she has said publicly what the bulk of the Tory party believe. She has finally brought honesty to her party. She now says in public that which I find detestable about the Tory party. And clearly what the majority of voters in this country cannot bring themselves to vote for.

Regarding the Poll Tax...

---

by Cat
Do the rich have their bins collected more often? Do their roads get swept more feequently? Do they use the parks more often than the rest of us? No, they dont, so why should they pay more?

---

Because they can. I respect your right to your opinion Cat, but I've been fond for a while of the following phrase: 'From each according to their ability, To each according to their need'. I think it's an honourable philosophy, a kind philosophy, and one I'd like to see enacted. So colour me socialist.

Regarding Student Loans...

DJ, I suspect you might have been a student around the time I was. But I have to correct your history. The Tories abolished the grant and replaced it with the loan. They phased one in and the other out. Consequently there was a period in the early nineties where the two coincided. All New Tory did was not reverse the policy, and to enact the Tory initiated policy of instating Tuition Fees.

Further, there have been studies that clearly link the introduction of student loans with the huge, and sudden, drop in students coming from C2, D and E families. Education should be open to all with the interest and the ability, regardless of their parents'/guardians' income.

Put that's just my less than humble tuppeny bit (with a no doubt snobbish tinge...)

---

by Jayjay
DJ, I suspect you might have been a student around the time I was. But I have to correct your history. The Tories abolished the grant and replaced it with the loan. They phased one in and the other out. Consequently there was a period in the early nineties where the two coincided. All New Tory did was not reverse the policy, and to enact the Tory initiated policy of instating Tuition Fees.

---

What the Tories did with grants was freeze them then decrease them slightly. Student loans were brought in to supplement the grants. It was never Tory policy to eventually abolish them.

When Labour came into power in 1997 it had been known for a while that they were going to abolish grants and they pushed ahead with it pretty much from day one. The new system came in for new students at the start of the 1998/99 academic year. A quarter of their total payment was grant and the other three quarters loan (an interim measure if you like before the full abolishion of grants a year later). The payment of up to (approx.) £1000 fees was also introduced this year.

Students who had started their further education under the old Tory system continued to get grants until the end of their course and did not have to pay fees.

The following year (1999/2000), grants were abolished fully and students had to make do with loans. This loan system was totally different to that under the Tories. Instead of students spreading their applications out through the year, all students were applying for their loan at the same time. Unfortunately the loan company simply couldn't cope (part of the materplan that wasn't really thought through perhaps?) and some students even had to wait until after Christmas for their first payment to filter through the backlog. Not an ideal situation when you potentially have to shell out £3000 just for fees and accommodation on your first day.

Also, the earning threshold for repayment of the loans brought in under Labour is much lower than that for the old style loans. Tory loans do not have to be repaid until the student is earning 85% of the national average (a figure which is around £18,500pa at the moment) whereas the new Labour loans have to start being repaid once the student is earning over £10,000.

As far as student number dropping is concerned, I can't really comment on the trends during the Tory years. However, I know that where I work (the Chemistry department at Liverpool University) the first year intake was consistanly around 100 from 1995 to 1997 and since the Labour system was brought in in 1998 the first year intake has been somewhere between a half and two thirds of that figure.

(Edited by DJ Billy 29/03/2002 20:29)

---

by Jayjay
Put that's just my less than humble tuppeny bit (with a no doubt snobbish tinge...)

---

Snobbish? I don't think so But you never really said whether you would wish *ill health* on Maggie. I wouldn't have thought anyone would wish strokes and such ill health on anyone?

DJ, it was my understanding that the New Tory government abolished the maintenance grant and introduced tuition fees as part of its commitment to stick to Tory spending plans, and was merely the fulfilment of the Higher Education Policy the Tories had initiated. However, I have nothing to hand to confirm this, except my ever-hazy memory. I'll see if I can track down some hard facts and get back to you.

Red. Do I wish ill health on the Magster? Hmmm. Would I wish a stroke on her? Hard to say as I have strong personal memories of relatives suffering strokes and as such it is quite an emotive image for me. A bit too close to the bone. So that would be no. Do I wish her ill health? As much as I hate the woman, she was acting on a democratic mandate, which separates her from the list of people I supplied in my last post. To wish her ill health would be to wish ill health on the millions who put her there in the first place. What I meant to imply last time was that my dislike for her leaves me with absolutely no compassion for her. While I would not actively wish ill health on her I find it impossible to feel sympathy for her in any shape or form.

After all, she never showed sympathy for the many lives she wrecked.

DJ Billy: Casting my mind back to my student activist days in the early 90s, I am sure that the Tories had made it very clear that they were introducing loans and phasing out grants. I think that grants were to be cut by something like 20% per annum with a corresponding increase in loans. The loan was always very much a replacement rather than a top-up.

As for the new repayment system, this is an idea that was being floated around for a long time. As the size of student loans increased it was becoming clearer and clearer that the old repayment system (monthly direct debit payments over a 5 year period once you started to earn above a certain threshold) was presenting a larger and larger burden. The new repayments start at a lower income level but are also lower than payments under the old system and vary according to income levels.

---

by White Hart
DJ Billy: Casting my mind back to my student activist days in the early 90s, I am sure that the Tories had made it very clear that they were introducing loans and phasing out grants. I think that grants were to be cut by something like 20% per annum with a corresponding increase in loans. The loan was always very much a replacement rather than a top-up.

---

The last year before Student Loans were introduced in 1990, the maximum grant for a student living away from home but outside London was about £2200. This decreased steadily until 1997, the final year that grants were issued to new students, when the maximum grant under those same circumstances was about £1800. This was a decrease of only £400 over the eight years. The loan for such a student increased by around £50 each year from 1990 to 1997 (and at a similar rate thereafter for students still under the old scheme). Whether the 20%pa decrease was discussed by the Tories I don't know, but it's a policy that certainly wasn't implemented.

(It's handy having worked in Student Loans myself, and having a parent who's been Student Loans officer at a University from day one )

Labour did use the excuse of having to stick within the Tories' spending limits when they abolished grants (whether that was spin or not I don't know). However they were not referring to the Tories' specific spending plan for higher education, but to their general spending plan. It was Labour who decided that money should be saved in such a drastic fashion in that specific area. I'm not denying that the Tories or Lib Dems would have continued to decrease spending on student grants had they won the 1997 election, however there's no doubt their plans would have been nowhere near as radical as those implemented by Labour.

Having said that though, if Labour lost the next election, there's no way whichever party came into power would be able to find the money to reintroduce grants

---

by White Hart
As for the new repayment system, this is an idea that was being floated around for a long time. As the size of student loans increased it was becoming clearer and clearer that the old repayment system (monthly direct debit payments over a 5 year period once you started to earn above a certain threshold) was presenting a larger and larger burden. The new repayments start at a lower income level but are also lower than payments under the old system and vary according to income levels.

---

Yes. Under the new system graduates repay 9% of whatever they earn over £833 a month (works out to £10,000pa) and it comes directly out of their salary. So students won't have to pay the hefty sums they would if the old system of repayments was in tandem with the new style of loans (around £200 a month for £11,000 worth of debt for example ), but the majority of students will have to start repaying much earlier in their careers.


As an aside, I've realised that I'm possibly painting myself as a Tory supporter, which certainly isn't true (not that I want to be affiliated to any other party either )



(Edited by DJ Billy 31/03/2002 18:10)