Margaret Thatcher was a Benefit to the U.K.
Debate Rounds (5)
My stance is that Margaret Thatcher during her time as the Prime Minister of the U.K from 1979 - 1990 was beneficial to the U.K, and Con's stance is that she was not. I define benefit as, "an advantage or profit gained from something". So in this case, I mean that Margaret Thatcher's time as Prime Minister was an advantage to and improved the U.K, making it a better place. Retaining the theme, this debate will follow the British Parliamentary style of debating. First rounds is for acceptance, and rounds are as follows:
Round One: Opening arguments
Round Two: Further arguments + rebuttal
Round Three: Rebuttal + extension speaking
Round Four: Summary + Conclusion
Rules are simple, no insults, no ad hominem, follow the round structure, argue the correct motion and DDO rules apply. Any breach is up for the voters to decide on any retribution. I hope for an intriguing and interesting debate. Any questions, please ask in the comments. Thank you.
a) Margret Thatcher's Economic policies detrimental to the British Economy, and harmed workers rights, and increased poverty levels
b) Thatcher's policies lead the UK into an unnecessary war in South America
c) Thatcher made the Northern Ireland Troubles worse
d) Thatcher repealed much of the Progress that had been made by previous PMs in regards to government reform, decolonization and the economy
Throughout this debate I shall prove all these points and show how Margret Thatcher did not make the UK a better place.
I am not too sure whether that counts as acceptance. I will leave it to the voters to decide whether you have broken the rules. I do think you have however. But I will now proceed.
I. Margaret Thatcher Overall Increased the Economy
"As one can imagine, economic production and growth, what GDP represents, has a large impact on nearly everyone within that economy. For example, when the economy is healthy, you will typically see low unemployment and wage increases as businesses demand labor to meet the growing economy. A significant change in GDP, whether up or down, usually has a significant effect on the stock market. It's not hard to understand why: a bad economy usually means lower profits for companies, which in turn means lower stock prices. Investors really worry about negative GDP growth, which is one of the factors economists use to determine whether an economy is in a recession."
Do not skirt the importance of GDP. GDP is the sum of the country as a whole, and is the home of a bounty of correlations.
GDP has correlations with education, standard of living, literacy, corporate profits, inflation, technology, safety and everything to do with the standard of living. Health, welfare, peace, GDP has a positive correlation with them all. To be able to drastically rise the GDP is not easy. Considering right now, the U.K. has a pattern of this:
Steady fluctuation. The recession hit us hard, but other than that, it is fairly steady. But Margaret Thatcher managed to do this:
Let the graph speak for itself. This drastic increase in GDP is not meagre, quite the contrary, because it led to this:
I know there are a lot of graphs here, but let me sum it up to the floor. She reduced inflation, reduced government spending, reduced the amount of strikes which were very detrimental to 1980s England especially, and saved a lot of money. The price of living decreased, women earnt pay closer to that of males and overall, England was better economically. The abundance of graphs are to get that message clear. Yes, the Gini Coefficient rose. Yes manufacturing decreased, but the floor and you need to realise that overall, she did increase the economy of Britain because the evidence is there. People are living longer:
Margaret Thatcher did boost the economy, that is my first point and the premise of my debate. There were over 3 million people who were unemployed, but there were 50 million or so people who lived in an overall wealthier Britain, and the effects of that were great, which is my second point.
II. The Means in which She Increased the Economy were Beneficial to Britain and Shaped the Country We Know Today
Margaret Thatcher boosted the economy, cut down spending and inflation due to a variety of reasons, but most importantly was privatisation. During 1979, Britain was bordering socialism. Sale of houses, to energy, etc. And it was not successful. Unemployment was always on the rise, as it was 1.6 million in 1976. Wages of a family was worse in 1979 than in 1974. The economy was downhill and the Government had to pour money out. Margaret Thatcher did not destroy manufacturing. Manufacturing and ship-building were weak operations only surviving due to grants and subsidies. Subsidies were being poured into the north like a waterfall and it was only hurting the economy for the whole country. So what did Margaret do? She pulled out on subsidies and allowed manufacturing to lead to their inevitable death. There was no point putting money into a failing operation at the expense of the country. Communities were destroyed, but they were dying anyway. Once she'd pulled the plug, Margaret Thatcher could start with privatisation.
I don't think I need to explain why privatisation of things which aren't basic necessities is a good thing. Basic business will tell you that supply and competition create lower prices and newer more innovative products. And that certainly did happen. Whether you have the time to watch that whole documentary I have embedded, is up to you, but what it does show is a boost in people buying houses, a boost in people buying luxuries, happiness and overall quality of life throughout the majority of the country, but even more importantly, to you and I.
Margaret Thatcher was libertarian with economics. Limited government interference and a free market. Again, I do not want to go off on an economic tangent, but a free market is one of innovation, cheap prices and the promotion of small business yet the benefit of large. Margaret Thatcher economically wise not only helped the country, but she promoted business in a way that helped towards the life we have today. By removing bureaucracy and privatising many industries, she gave many people a better life, blurring the lines between what makes you rich. People could buy their own houses, live a freer lives and if she was not around, your car could be state owned, your house and life would not be where it was. I will tackle the issue of strikes next round. Thank you, and I urge the floor to side with me.
My opponent has conceded. Vote Pro.
I understand. It's fine. Just passing this along now.
No, the better man is the one that knows when to back up and does let pride or ignorance get in the way. The one that accepts when to lose and is humble and not spiteful in his loss. I very much respect what you've done because it takes somebody who is very sure of himself to do that. Kudos to you.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by NiamC 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||5||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had a better argument in which it was more detailed and structured than pros. I don't need to go on about why pro would win. Round 2 + were just wasted after reading pros argument. Nevertheless, I found round 2 + rather funny.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.