News2 mins ago
Thatcher Ignored Poll Tax Warnings
Archives opened under the 30 year rule suggest that TGL ignored warnings that the poll tax was unworkable.
// However, the opened archives also reveal a memo penned by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nigel Lawson, who said the measure would be "unworkable" and "politically catastrophic".
"The biggest gainers will be the better-off households in high rateable value properties, the losers would be poorer households, particularly larger ones," he wrote. //
She ignored that good advice and led to her ousting. Ah well...
// However, the opened archives also reveal a memo penned by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nigel Lawson, who said the measure would be "unworkable" and "politically catastrophic".
"The biggest gainers will be the better-off households in high rateable value properties, the losers would be poorer households, particularly larger ones," he wrote. //
She ignored that good advice and led to her ousting. Ah well...
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Gromit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Well, Zacs, the last time the TGL topic came up, I immediately thought the L might be Loser. I mean, as a Tory leader who was thrown out of the window by her very own Cabinet, Thatcher was in much the same category as Iain Duncan Smith. If he doesn't qualify as a loser, the word must have shed all meaning. As for the G, there's always Grisly, Grotesque, plus a dictionaryful of other possibilities.
There seems to be an attempt to re-write history in regard to the Poll Tax. Local Authorities of all political colour hated it. It was despised in the Tory Shires as much as it was in Labour Metropolitan cities. It wasn't scrapped by rioters or left wing councils, it was scrapped by the Conservative Government because they knew it was dud.
The Poll Tax was never an attempt at a fairer local tax, it was primarily to take the setting of local tax away from local people and instead imposed by central Government. A fits all amount devised by beaurocrats in London regardless of local need. The Government had previously tried to cap the amount a Council could levy. When that became problematic, they simply took away the power of elected local people to set any levy at all.
The Poll Tax was never an attempt at a fairer local tax, it was primarily to take the setting of local tax away from local people and instead imposed by central Government. A fits all amount devised by beaurocrats in London regardless of local need. The Government had previously tried to cap the amount a Council could levy. When that became problematic, they simply took away the power of elected local people to set any levy at all.
it was mainly to get all users of local services to pay not just home owners. QM TGL won all he elections she entered, I know that you are clearly an expert on losers but I'd say you are off the mark here.
Yes ummm, as with council tax, all paid the same. It was better than what we now have but personally I'd abolish the whole silly game and fund the whole lot centrally, 75% of it is already anyway.
Yes ummm, as with council tax, all paid the same. It was better than what we now have but personally I'd abolish the whole silly game and fund the whole lot centrally, 75% of it is already anyway.
Might be that way in Engerland TTT but in Scotland every household paid a level of local tax, before the poll tax. It was a joke and her contempt of Scotland was well noted and gave the SNP a real start in gaining the momentum towards the referendum. It was always a joke but if they hadn't singled Scotland out first and had teired it on the basis of what you could afford to pay then it might be a proper solution..... typical tories though..experiment on the Scots
that Scotland was used as a poll tax experiment lab by the 1987 conservative government is a myth, and it was busted years ago.
http://
http://
In practice it was unworkable. The Conservative Shires ultimately had it killed and were the archeitects of the current system.
Personally, I don't want some pen pusher in Westminster deciding how my money is spent locally. I trust elected local councillors to know the are better than someone hundreds of miles away.
Personally, I don't want some pen pusher in Westminster deciding how my money is spent locally. I trust elected local councillors to know the are better than someone hundreds of miles away.
Michael Heseltine said on Radio 4 this morning, that her idea of have a Cabinet Meeting was invite everybody, tell them what she was going to do, and then wait for someone to disagree and argue with her. But, as Andy has already said, she didn't understand dissent and therefore she wouldn't allow any. Her Cabinet was run on a basis of fear, and was therefore hardly to be described as a consensus.
In the end that pigheadedness was her downfall. Lets not forget that it wasn't the British people that finally threw her out, but her own Party who did the deed.
In the end that pigheadedness was her downfall. Lets not forget that it wasn't the British people that finally threw her out, but her own Party who did the deed.
Blackadder, the following is from the Wikipedia article on Thatcher…
“Though she initially stated that she intended to contest the second ballot, Thatcher decided, after consulting with her Cabinet colleagues, to withdraw from the contest. On 22 November, at just after 9.30 a.m., she announced to the Cabinet that she would not be a candidate in the second ballot. Shortly afterwards, her staff made public what was, in effect, her resignation statement.”
The italicised part of the quote above makes it perfectly clear that the real ‘decision’ was in fact – as I claimed earlier – made by Cabinet members. If most of them had supported her, she would have remained in power, but they clearly didn’t.
I don’t suppose you can find grounds for claiming the “ridiculous electoral rule” of the Tories was the fault of the Labour Party, can you? So, just who dreamt it up? Surely not the Tories themselves!
TTT, Tony Blair won all three of the elections he entered, too, and Harold Wilson went one better than him OR Thatcher by winning all FOUR he entered and before either of them! Even if you discount the one where he formed a minority government, he still equalled them. So, if multiple election wins by one leader in modern times are considered important, you have to confess the score is Labour 2 Tories 1!
“Though she initially stated that she intended to contest the second ballot, Thatcher decided, after consulting with her Cabinet colleagues, to withdraw from the contest. On 22 November, at just after 9.30 a.m., she announced to the Cabinet that she would not be a candidate in the second ballot. Shortly afterwards, her staff made public what was, in effect, her resignation statement.”
The italicised part of the quote above makes it perfectly clear that the real ‘decision’ was in fact – as I claimed earlier – made by Cabinet members. If most of them had supported her, she would have remained in power, but they clearly didn’t.
I don’t suppose you can find grounds for claiming the “ridiculous electoral rule” of the Tories was the fault of the Labour Party, can you? So, just who dreamt it up? Surely not the Tories themselves!
TTT, Tony Blair won all three of the elections he entered, too, and Harold Wilson went one better than him OR Thatcher by winning all FOUR he entered and before either of them! Even if you discount the one where he formed a minority government, he still equalled them. So, if multiple election wins by one leader in modern times are considered important, you have to confess the score is Labour 2 Tories 1!
TTT, unlike yourself obviously, I DO feel inclined to consider a PM who is chucked out by his/her own Cabinet rather than the electorate to be a loser. Previous 'wins' of whatever sort cease to be relevant in those circumstances. It was the Tory, Enoch Powell, who claimed, “all political careers end in failure.” Roget's Thesaurus lists failure and loser as synonyms.
// I DO feel inclined to consider a PM who is chucked out by his/her own Cabinet rather than the electorate to be a loser //
I see you're still putting your own unique spin on things again QM. How about a PM who was never elected by his own party, let alone the electorate, but was subsequently chucked out by the electorate at the first opportunity - he'd be a roaring success I suppose?
I see you're still putting your own unique spin on things again QM. How about a PM who was never elected by his own party, let alone the electorate, but was subsequently chucked out by the electorate at the first opportunity - he'd be a roaring success I suppose?
Perhaps, Ludwig, you don't grasp how British elections - even for membership of the committee of a local tennis club - work, so let me explain...If only one eligible candidate puts his/her name forward, the job's theirs! You may consider that as 'election by default', if you like, but election it certainly remains. End of, but have a happy new year.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles8 mins ago
Technology15 mins ago
ChatterBank21 mins ago
Home & Garden41 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.