I went to an event at the Institute of Economic Affairs last night at which several of the authors of a new book, Margaret Thatcher's Revolution, including Norman Tebbitt, spoke. Here are some of their remarks:
Dennis O'Keeffe: "much 'special needs' is about children who have not been taught to read".
David Marsland: Privatising the supply of healthcare (ie hospitals and doctors) is relatively easy. Privatising demand is more difficult. But a start could be made by using tax rebates to enable people to opt out of state-financed care.
James Stanfield: He went to a comprehensive school. He did GCSE in English Literature and did not do any Shakespeare at all. The year after he left, the headmaster was punched by a pupil as order faded. He reckons he got out 'just in time'. He wanted governments, if they are subsidising education, to subsidise the consumer, not the producer. He said he had been to Kenya and was appalled that the British government was exporting the failed British model of 'free and compulsory' education. He said, "British money is destroying education in Africa."
Norman Tebbitt talked of the huge transfer of assets that took place under Thatcher from the public sector to the private sector. He reeled off a list of companies privatised that was far longer than most of us can easily remember. On top of that was the sale of council homes. He said these things combined to make a big difference in social attitudes.
He admitted some failures.
He said, "we failed in the non-economic aspects of policy" and "I bitterly regret that we weren't bolder in our programme in 1987 - particularly in health reform and education reform".
On Europe, he suggested the policy now should be to describe a European Union of a kind that we would like and, if we cannot get it (or, presumably, something close, that we should leave the EU. He said that Thatcher tried to make the European Union into more of the kind of place she wanted with the Single Market. But this had not worked: "Have we got a single market? Have we hell!"
He was asked what was the biggest mistake of the Thatcher years. He had no doubt that it was joining the Exchange Rate Mechanism. Up until the ERM fiasco, the Conservatives were ahead in virtually every opinion poll on the question of which party would be better at running the economy. Ever since the ERM, the Conservatives have been behind on the same question.
In describing Margaret Thatcher's view of things, he said, "she believed fundamentally that people behave logically". He said approvingly that she was "predictable". You know what she would think on any issue. You did not have to ring up Number Ten and ask. When she and he were both making speeches on the same night, they did not need to exchange speeches to ensure they would not contradict each other. The line was clear and predictable. He pitied those who worked for Blair who would have no such certainty. [For example, does he believe in the state running things or private companies? One minute Railtrack is nationalised, the next he is contracting out hospital operations to private companies.]
The evening brought home how many radical things she did - things that are easily forgotten like removing exchange controls, pay limits and dividend controls. Tebbitt remarked, "we were thinking so many unthinkable thoughts we almost frightened ourselves".
Dennis O'Keeffe said that under the Thatcher administration he came to be proud of Britain. In looking to a future leader of the Tory party, he thought we would need one who could make us proud again.
Posted by James Bartholomew • Indexed in Education • European Union • Housing • NHS • Politics
Comments (7)
TrackBack (23)
Comments
Yes, HJHJ: everyone says council taxes are too high, but in fact they're way too low.
Posted by: Steve at June 9, 2005 10:17 AM
Steve: Council taxes are too high given that we also have to pay so many other taxes. The problem is that I can't remember any current politician saying that local taxes should be higher but national ones should correspondingly be much lower.
Incidentally, in my area we do pay the vast majority of what is spent locally in council tax as we get a particularly bad deal relative to other areas from the government on central funding. In fact, the government has actually admitted that what we get is way below the figure it should be - it has just said it won't pay the amount its own formulae says it should. Could this be in any way related to the fact that it's one of the safest Tory seats in the country, I wonder?
Posted by: HJHJ at June 9, 2005 11:57 AM
Council taxes are too low??!! To make this sort of a statement, one must believe that 1) local government spending is not excessive, and 2) that council tax is fair. To answer the first question, all one need do is pick up the Grauniad appointments section. In fact, even the most reasonable local government functions--ie, roads and police--are grossly overfunded, because of the bureaucratic procedures which have become the norm. And as for the second question, anyone who is employed and earning a low wage will tell you that council tax is the most iniquitous tax on the books. My council tax absorbs 1/3 of my salary. Why? because I have spent a very large part of my life transforming my 3 1/2 acres into our own Arcadia. We don't fit into the New Labour scheme of things, much like hunters and others who march to a sound of a different drummer. When it comes to inclusion, bear in mind that it is a two way street: to be included, you have to march to the tunes approved by our masters. Freedom is far from dead, but it is disappearing at a rate which alarms me. These days, hardly anyone in Britain can distinguish between 'freedom' and 'human rights'--which are two diametrically opposite concepts. The latter depends upon vast extensions of the state's competence to intrude upon hitherto private spheres of activity.
Posted by: tom burkard at June 10, 2005 09:36 PM
Council taxes are too low because they don't come anywhere close to covering the cost of local government. Local-government spending is, indeed, probably too high, but my point is that this is hidden from us by the subsidy (60 or 70 per cent on average?) that is paid out of general taxation. If we had to pay three times as much in council tax (and less in income tax or VAT), we might be more careful about who we vote into office. In fact, more of us might actually bother to vote in local-government elections.
Posted by: Steve D at June 11, 2005 10:22 AM
Tom,
Steve said "council taxes" not "council tax". He was talking about the total revenue, not saying that the current method of taxation is fair.
I agree with almost everything you say about excessive local expenditure and inefficiencies. However, as the vast majority (over two thirds) of local government spending is provided from central government, if all revenue were raised locally there would still have to be higher local taxes even if dramatic cuts and changes were made to local government spending. It is just conceivable that local expenditure could be cut by over two thirds, but not just by 'efficiency' savings - a far more radical overhaul of what is funded by local taxation would be necessary (and this may not be what the local electorate chooses).
Posted by: HJHJ at June 11, 2005 11:15 AM
To pick up on one of Sir Norman's recollections about MT, she was bang on the money - people act rationally. Local Government acts rationally from its own perspective. It might not seem like it to some, but put yourself in their shoes. They have comparatively little control over budgets, few incentives to persuade and inform their electorate, and have the perennial get-out of teenagers - it is all the parent's fault.
A classic case of conditioned behaviour.
Posted by: Ricky at June 20, 2005 06:07 PM
Warning: file(http://63.247.138.2/~bartholo/randomquotes.dump) [function.file]: failed to open stream: No route to host in /home/bartholo/public_html/archives/2005/06/i_went_to_an_ev.php on line 328
Warning: implode() [function.implode]: Bad arguments. in /home/bartholo/public_html/archives/2005/06/i_went_to_an_ev.php on line 328
Local government policy was also an important failure. Instead of shifting responsibility for raising and spending revenue to local government, they applied central control (e.g. capping) and increased central funding to tame wayward local authorities.
Whilst understandable in the circumstances, it would have been better to make local authorities take full responsibility for their actions without a central bale-out and let them answer to the local electorate.
Labour have only made the Tories poor legacy in this area even worse because they are naturally a centralising party.
Posted by: HJHJ at June 8, 2005 10:54 AM