The Thatcherite PLU-tocracy
The abiding topic of the week has, of course, been the funeral of Lady Thatcher; the cost, the style and so forth.
Somewhat randomly, I offer up two memories of the week which will stick with me. The first was hearing an interview with comedian and satirist Alexei Sayle. The former member of the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist) dismissed the former Iron Lady as simply a vile non intellectual who had set out to wreck the country as if this was simply a statement of fact. A second moment which will stay with me was the swelling “boos” and groans from the BBC’s “Question Time” any time a hapless member of the panel might suggest that Maggie did anything good at all.
Both of these incidents made me wonder. Had I dreamed the entire 1980’s? Had I been duped into thinking that Maggie had existed at all, rather than winning three elections?
And then, again randomly, my mind flicked back to an evening back in the early 1980’s when I heard a speech and some questions and answers with the late Lord Denning MR at the Cambridge Union. Denning, for those who may not be quite old enough to remember, was a remarkable judge, famed for not following the established legal line, a sense of humour and a brilliant mind, all carefully concealed beneath a gentle Hampshire burr and homespun rustic style which I am pretty sure were entirely creatures of artifice. Denning was never a man to let the straightjacket of legal precedent deter him from reaching the just result, and he famously kept a library of history books in his Hampshire home. These, he would observe, taught him more than law books.
He gave a disarming and funny speech. I still remember him giving this advice for a happy life, with perfect comedic timing:
“Meet with good people. Eat with good people. And sleep……….. with a clear conscience.”
After the speech the now very aged Denning was asked a difficult question: who should choose the judges, and be the judges. Denning’s response to that was in one sense highly simplistic, but was actually enormously profound. He did not hesitate, but with a sly grin and a twinkle in his eye, he replied:
“People like us”.
That of course recalls one of the central motifs of Thatcher’s time; being “One Of Us”. I am not suggesting that Denning was a Thatcherite, or even a Conservative, although I am sure he would have been to the right of the political spectrum. He was making a wider, and very political point. In continental Europe the political agenda has always been dominated by the intellectual, and intellectualism, in all its many and often less appealing forms. Intellectualism allows almost anything to be justified in the name of an “ism”; Marxism and Nazism made a pretty good job of demonstrating how an “ism” can end up wiping out large tracts of the population in the course of specious causes. In Britain and its history of political thought (Mill, Hobbes etc) there is always an emphasis of pragmatism, and simple moral decency. It is, of course, ironic that Thatcher got her own “ism”, which she never claimed for herself.
Thatcher was indeed One Of Us. I am One Of Us. Who are We? We may or may not have brilliant intellectual capabilities. But we would never consider ourselves intellectual. Every argument would be tempered by a fair dollop of that most unappealing quality which the intellectual Left despise, common sense. For example, we would not regard it as a good idea for governments to endlessly spend more than they are receiving in revenue, or to tax people so much that they stop working or leave the country. On a less overtly political level, we are the ordinary backbone of the country (a significant word), who get on with things, do what we can for our families, and try to make a go of it. We don’t make a fuss, but we honour and value our country and its history. We don’t make a fuss, but we would like to see criminals sent to prison and people who arrive in this country with no intent but to blow us up sent home whence they came. We don’t have a defining agenda. We are not “right on”, like Mr. Sayle. We may be boring by many people’s standards. In my own case I never “got” Punk or Ska, or the various obligatory fads of music and fashion which it is now considered obligatory for “yoof” to follow. We hold non pc views, which elected politicians find scandalous. We are not the people who appear on the Jeremy Kyle show, nor are we the people dining at the Groucho club. We have no particularly cohesive political credo other than a basic understanding of and loyalty to a free and open civil society based on Judaeo-Christian values and a healthy dose of that pragmatic common sense. We do not normally attend recordings of the BBC’s Question Time. People who read The Guardian and The Observer do that. But we have antennae, and we know each other when and where we meet. Many of Us read this blog.
In short we have a value system which is wholly alien to a Marxist intellectual “comedian”. And Margaret Thatcher was one of US.
The funeral is proving somewhat… divisive? This is understandable, even necessary. Margaret Thatcher was the incarnation of a value system which revolted both the privileged Establishment and the intellectual Left. The response of both these interest groups was and is – hate. So be it. As one of Us, I react with a notional shrug of the shoulders. If going out and buying “Ding, Dong, the witch is dead” upon the death of an 87 year old grandmother who was PM for 11 years is the level of your political awareness and debate, then I regard that as a supreme validation of Margaret Thatcher, and why she did what she did, and had to.
There was an interesting documentary about Lady Thatcher on Channel 4 last night, and one of the observations reached was that Thatcher was never an Establishment figure, nor even a Conservative. She was a radical liberal who wanted to empower the working class (at least those who wanted to work) and, what loosely might be called, the petit bourgeois.
This funeral is not about national unity. It is about People Like Us asserting a display that we are still here. In Britain’s changing social landscape it may be a last hurrah, but that is for the future. Here is an interesting thing. Many of People Like Us were not and are not card carrying “Thatcherites” at all, and would have found many reasons to disagree with her individual policies and sometimes style. But she was still one of Us. The present cabinet with its phalanx of millionaire Old Etonians are not one of Us, and neither were the plausible faces of New Labour, or the Milibands or Ballses.
I think it is time to celebrate the spit and venom of the Left’s complaints about the matter. It is not only ironic but delightful that the Left which has all but bankrupted the country for generations with spending on Diversity Coordinators and disastrous PFI Ponzi Schemes is carping. Let it carp.
As I say, I am sure that there are many policies where I would have taken a different or more nuanced line. But unlike Cameron and Miliband, she came from a humble background, without privilege, and made her own way in a man’s world. Unlike Blair, she led the country in a war to defend its own sovereign territory when it appeared all was lost, rather than riding on Bush’s coattails in support of wars that were at very best of dubious legality. Unlike any other post-war Prime Minister she reversed the apparently inevitable decline into grey, Union managed, Eastern European poverty, and she played a key role in diplomacy with Gorbachev which ultimately freed Europe from Soviet tyranny. Those are achievements which deserve respect. And she was one of Us.
People Like US will pay our respect, and to hell with what people like Mr. Sayle think.
Sigillum
Photo by Andrew Reeves-Hall
The 2009 Festival Procession makes its way through The Square in Whitchurch, Hampshire.
(Whitchurch is where draper’s son, Alfred “Tom” Denning was born.)
April 18, 2013 at 11:00
-
Re Judd……The funeral went off very well indeed. Suberbly well done at short
notice. It was dignified and respectful and very impressive. We enjoyed
spotting aging members of the establishment…..including the most impresssive
pair of eyebrows ever, waving over a very lived in face. The Thatcher
grandaughter delivered her bible quote with superb calm and expression. What a
lovely looking family! Lady Thatcher has left another legacy of her handsome
grandchildren. Let us hope they do as handsome as they look. We might hear
again from Miss Thatcher in the not too distant future hopefully.
April 17, 2013 at 20:54
-
Moor Larkin,
Re: “the housing was becoming dilapidated and the councils could not afford
the cost of renovation, and so if some of the stock was sold they could then
use the money to maintain the ones where people lived who could not afford to
buy”
You seem to be able to rely on housing associations, and in the past, the
council to maintain their housing better than most private landlords that are
in it solely for the money though.
We had a landlord that wouldn’t even come out when one of our electrical
sockets was burning like it was on fire, and it was so damp mushrooms grew on
the floor by the toilet cause when you flushed the toilet water spilt
everywhere onto the floor (like that when we moved in). Did he replace the
toilet? No – just tied a plastic bag around it to stop it leaking. Would the
housing association or the council have done? Of course they would.
Obviously money had been given to the local governments in the first place
to have the houses that were sold built, it wouldn’t seem unreasonable to me
to have let them keep most of the profits, if the reason they had to sell was
lack of money to maintain their properties….
April 17, 2013 at 17:59
-
“The Labour Party initially proposed the idea of the right of tenants to
own the house they live in, in its manifesto for the 1959 General Election
which it subsequently lost.[1] Later, the Conservative-controlled Greater
London Council of the late 1960s was persuaded by Horace Cutler, its Chairman
of Housing, to create a general sales scheme. Cutler disagreed with the
concept of local authorities as providers of housing and supported a free
market approach. GLC housing sales were not allowed during the Labour
administration of the mid-1970s but picked up again once Cutler became Leader
in 1977. They proved extremely popular, and Cutler was close to Margaret
Thatcher (a London MP) who made the right to buy council housing a
Conservative Party policy nationally. In the meantime, council house sales to
tenants began to increase. Some 7,000 were sold to their tenants during 1970,
but in two short years that figure soared to more than 45,000 in
1972.[2]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Buy
I’m surprised Liddle is till using that tired old “Society” misquote. That
Labour misuse of her words has to be the start of the modern mania for
plucking sentences out of context and then using them for propaganda. The full
quote is basically saying that “Society” is NOT the State. Unless you’e in
North Korea, then that is hopefully the case.
- April 17, 2013 at 19:48
-
Moor Larkin,
“They’re casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no
such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are
families. And no government can do anything except through people, and
people must look to themselves first. It’s our duty to look after ourselves
and then, also to look after our neighbour.” ~ Margaret Thatcher
Well apparently she only said it in an interview to ‘Womans own’ anyway,
I think she may have been trying to make a point that if you want to change
society, you’ve got to start with yourself and the government can only help,
if the people are prepared to co operate and do their bit and also that it
takes many individuals to make a society and you can only change yourself.
Or something like that, which is true.
I don’t have a problem with people having the right to buy their council
house, if they like their council house and want to stay in it, are happy
with the area etc – or at least think they will be able to sell it. I wish
to god my mum hadn’t bought hers, though.
But it is the motives for the selling of the council houses that i’m not
sure about. Was it just to get rid of council housing because she didn’t
like it?
Why were councils not allowed to keep more of the profits to
build more new ones?
From my observation, council and housing associations are much more often
far more reliable than private landlords – and it’s cheaper, it’s a good
thing and not everbody wants to be tied down with owning a house….
- April 17, 2013 at 20:12
-
The story at the time was that the housing was becoming dilapidated and
the councils could not afford the cost of renovation, and so if some of
the stock was sold they could then use the money to maintain the ones
where people lived who could not afford to buy. That was the story at the
time, my dad told me a few years back. I noted from one link you gave,
that 75% of the revenue garnered was going back to central government
however. That is probably the other side of the UK political problem that
local government is largely funded by central government tax, rather than
the local population tax, and so Whitehall believed it was entitled to
that money back. I recall this disconnect between what local councils
wanted to *do*, and the money they could raise to *do* it, also lay at the
roots of what was genuinely Maggie’s own idea: the Poll tax……
April 17, 2013 at 10:52
-
Well I am not one of US – as defined here. I heard an interesting thing
this morning on the radio: Thatcher is revered by those who made money during
her time, and despised by those who didn’t.
I am sorry – and I know you didn’t mean it personally – but the red mist
descended with ‘She was a radical liberal who wanted to empower the working
class (at least those who wanted to work)’. My parents were working and wanted
to work. And an awful lot of people were in the same situation. They don’t
revere Thatcher because her revolution meant they lost jobs and then couldn’t
get any new ones because none were to be had. Those people don’t read about
GDP v’s other EU countries or the US and don’t work in the financial services
– they looked at a pile of bills and an empty bank account and wondered about
doing that little ‘cash in hand’ job at the weekend while still claiming
unemployment benefit. The fabulous 80′s weren’t fabulous for them. New jobs
weren’t created in their part of the country and they couldn’t move to another
part of the country because they didn’t have the money to.
One of the most
frustrating things for me for the last week had been the complete dismissal of
everyone who doesn’t think Thatcher is wonderful as some kind of loony leftie
with no common sense/ blind unionist/ scargill supporter/
marxist/shiftless/bone idle wannabee scrounger. It is frustrating that you
expect me to appreciate your point of view while making absolutely no effort
to understand the nuances of mine. I don’t disagree with all of Thatchers
policies, I don’t think she was evil but neither do I think she was wonderful.
She was better at breaking than making. She left a dreadful mess behind, for
example her much-vaunted policy of selling council houses was really just a
realisation of capital gain from property (something businesses do all the
time) and now we have a shortage of social housing. Council estates moved from
being mixed to being white-trash ghettos. She was great at short-term, lousy
at long-term. She was elected 3 times by a majority of the country against
weak opposition but that doesn’t mean everyone loved her and it doesn’t mean
everything she did was to the benefit of all.
And your ‘US’ by the way, is a line of reasoning that the intellectual Left
and the conservative Right use a lot to explain how they should be left in
charge of things and why they are right and everyone who disagrees with them
is stupid. It is a bogus, shallow line of reasoning used to justify your own
beliefs and is no more to be trusted that that of the Left or Right.
I completely understand why people are buying ‘Ding Dong’ – partly to wind
the establishment up and partly a childish ‘nah nah nah nah nah’ because she
wasn’t their messiah, just yours. I won’t be doing it. But neither will I be
indulging in the (gods help me, I hate the man and I am going to quote him….
gah!) ‘Tidal wave of Guff’ as George Galloway says. One of the last refuges of
the elite is to poo poo others with a condescending ‘have you no respect’ –
well no as it happens, I don’t. She didn’t have much for me or mine, I am
simply returning the favour. On the day of her funeral I shall mostly be doing
what I always do – and avoiding a load of presenters with their ‘hushed
reverence’ voices on.
- April 17, 2013 at 11:23
-
Thatcher didn’t invent “council house sales”. Labour did I think. My own
parents signed their deeds in 1978. I think whatThatcherism did dictate was
that all councils were obliged to make this possibility available to their
tenants because at the time Labour-run ghetooes were refusing to allow their
serfs to have the chance. I would agree that it is a tragedy that new
council houses were not built from the proceeds of these sales, but even my
parents used to remark that they were able to buy theirs at a ridiculously
low price, so there probably was not so much money derived from it as there
should have been. However, I did notice that a few years back a council in
Scotland was boasting that it was was building new council housing and
proudly announced the costs of the project and the number of houses
resulting. I did the arithmetic and it worked out that each house was
costing £200,000. That says it all about Public Servants and the fantasy
world they inhabit. As Maggie might have said, if she had been following
Blair, rather than the other way around, “Incompetence. Incompetence.
Incompetence”.
- April 17, 2013 at 16:15
-
m.barnes,
Yes, did she want to “empower the working class”….? Or did she just not
like them….?
I liked what the guy said at the end of this article:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/rod-liddle/8885401/thatcher-the-worst-and-the-best/
“I would go so far as to suggest that prime ministers who think there is
no such thing as society should not be prime ministers — if that is the
case, then what, after all, are you presiding over?” – my thoughts
exactly….
What did the government do with the 75% they took from the sale of those
council houses?
Put it took good use I hope:
http://martinwicks.wordpress.com/2012/02/01/why-the-right-to-buy-should-be-abandoned/
April 15, 2013 at 09:35
-
Thank you Gildas but I would insist on standing you the first pint for the
many interesting articles you have penned even if I might not have agreed with
all you have written
April 14, 2013 at 23:05
-
Good article, Mrs. T did connect with working and middle classes in a way
that none of our present lot do. Tony Blair did to some extent as both came
from lower and upper middle class backgrounds. Having lived through the 70s I
was glad when she became PM, as with most people I didn’t agree with
everything but she was the right person at the right time and Labour didn’t
reverse any of her changes. I watched a man ‘celebrating’ her death since he
lost his job in 1984! unbelievable. To celebrate anyone’s death is disgusting
and these scenes were beamed round the world. Then again it is pointless even
trying to talk to these people few of whom seemed old enough to have been born
when Mrs. T was in power. just hope they grow up. A quote I read recently that
teenagers used to grow up now they just grow old, I think that applies to
quite a lot of our so called ‘elites’ and ‘celebrities’.
- April 14, 2013 at 22:08
-
Well like you Sigillium I am proud not to be one of THEM in so far as you
categorise the ‘Intellectual’ left (but not all intellectuals —- your piece is
more than a little reminiscent of Herman Goerring who is reputed to have said
‘Everytime I hear the word Intellectual I reach for my Luger’) or The
Establishment (whatever that may mean since the Establishment changes as power
moves —were Tory Grandees really the Establishement in the 1960s or 70s? or
was it Union Bosses —-known as Barons I seem to recollect—— and various
members of the Media be they Magnates and Entertainers?) but equally I am
proud to not to be one of YOU (in the plural). Why? Well your piece could just
as easily be have been written by a member of the Intellectual Left or the
Establisment or any interest group, now or since the world started to turn who
think they hold the philosophers stone in one hand as they pen their piece
with the other.Not often I have to say I have heard it claimed the petty
bourgoisie (or whatever label you claim for ‘us’) are the fount of all thats
good in the world.
Your choice of Lord Denning as an exemplar of the ‘wisdom’ of the petty
bourgoise mentality could hardly have been more inept in my opinion and before
you enlist him as one of your own (the gay community are big on that sort of
claim that he was ‘one of us’ and that is why WE and HIM are one and the same
not just in sexual preference) you might reads a few of his judgements to
realise that his greatness didn’t stem from retaining a petty bourgoise
mentality but by having the intellect (look up its Latin root of the word—-
its intelluctus if you want to understand the word properly and stop confusing
it with lefties who spend too much of their life at University who have
arrogated the word to themselves in much the same way as you appear to
arrogate decency and much else besides to ‘YOU’ in the plural) beyond it.
No if you want to look to the fruits of Thatcherism in the law look to the
Master of the Rolls who suceeded Denning —-Sir John Donalson widely thought of
as an appointee of Thatcher (rather than the ‘us’ to which I suspect Lord
Denning was referring which was the legal establishment prior to the 1980s —a
group much despised by the intellectual left but most of whom had experienced
war and had knew exactly the sort of Justice they had been fighting for and
the sort of ‘Justice’ they had been fighting against) and couch the opinion of
a few lawyers on his intellect and approach to the Administration of Justice
(yes Justice not the Law there is a difference well known to the ‘us’ that
Lord Denning was actually referring to) —-a useful starting point might be his
conduct as a High Court Judge of the Guidford Four Case before he became the
most powerful Civil Judge in England and as an ex Tory candidate in a general
election could no doubt as such could be relied upon to administer
conservative union legislation without political bias —-yes independence in
the law is quite important though perhaps all we need as you seem to suggest
is common sense —well why bother with law as such lets just put common sense
kinda guys in charge of everything or if politics changes ‘regular’ kinda guys
for that was Blairs golden virtue wasn’t it? .
Thatcher was successful.. The Electorate get the Politicians they deserve.
They deserved Thatcher as much as they deserved Blair. We now live with both
their legacies and gosh what a grand old country we have to leave to our
children as a result. Ms Racccoon pens fine prose about England in the past
—–the 1980s? or a gentler earlier era when real intellectuals controlled the
levers of power?
PS I don’t like Alexie Sale, don’t even know what ska is, never been to
Eton or been on the Jeremy Kyle show or dined at the Groucho Club but do me a
favour just because I have done none of those things don’t think it makes me
one of YOU or because i have written as i have I am one of THEM (whoever you
think THEM might be.
April 15, 2013 at 00:06
-
A powerful counterbast Mr Steve! And whilst I tend to Sigillum’s outlook,
I would stand you a pint and listen closely to your views
April 14, 2013 at 21:57
-
Surely the expression “Marxist intellectual” is an oxymoron
-
April 14, 2013 at 21:22
-
There is a balnced and informative article by Camilla Cavendish in the
Sunday Times today. I quote just one section:
“As the LSE Growth Commission
recently pointed out, and contrary to Ken Livingstone’s assertion last week,
the period from 1979 to 2007 bucked the trend of almost a century of
Britain;’s economic decline relative to other western countries. In 1979 the
US GDP per head was 40% greater than that of the UK, and the main continental
countries were 10-15% ahead. By 2007 the UK had surpassed France and Germany
and closed much of the gap with America.” She goes on to to point out that
only 10% of the growth was down to financial services; the real driver was to
bust open the elite, including cosy Establsihment cartels in business and
finance. She goes on to argue convincingly that Thatcher liberated the economy
from the stranglehold of both unions and the accepted upper class cartels that
had failed to meet the challenges of a changing world.
- April 14, 2013 at 22:26
-
LSE have got their knickers in a twist with the BBC today I notice. Is
the “One Leftie Nation” principle breaking down?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tv-radio/panorama-was-worth-risking-lives-for-says-bbc-chief-programme-by-john-sweeney-based-on-secret-footage-taken-on-university-field-trip-to-north-korea-8572219.html
“The
argument has pitted one of Britain’s most prestigious universities and the
corporation into an argument over journalistic ethics.”
What a lark that those two are bickering about “ethics”……………..
April 14, 2013 at 20:44
-
The best article about one of us that I have read. Thank you.
April 14, 2013 at
22:23
-
One of us, exactly. Great piece Sigillum, from a boy born in a council
maisonette whose family was elevated by enabling policies Thatcher brought
in to ‘steal the working class’, as someone recently termed it.
April 14, 2013 at 20:39
-
The group ‘people like us’ was never a class-thing – OK, in its most public
presentation they tended to have emerged from middle-streams, but the greatest
volume of ‘people like us’ are spread across the nation and all sources, it’s
a belief-thing, the same belief-thing which led my working-class parents to
incline to voting Conservative most of the time.
Since the franchise was opened up to the lower orders, the Conservatives
could only ever be elected be gathering large numbers of those silent
thinkers, the hoardes of ordinary folk who don’t join parties, don’t go on
demos, often don’t even talk about politics in pubs and workplaces, they just
recognised some common principles in one party and put their X next to it. In
recent times, Margaret Thatcher proved the most successful in doing that, and
then keeping more of them voting for her message each time – something which
even super-slick Blair failed to achieve.
Right now, in the colourless identikit pack of mainstream politicos, there
is no-one capable of replicating Thatcher’s achievement of mobilising those
masses of voters, hence huge numbers of these ‘thinkers’ will continue to find
the closest match in Nigel Farage and UKIP. He’s not playing a right-wing
game, or a left-wing game, or a middle-of-the-road game – he’s playing the
same ‘people like us’ game, and there’s lots of people like us who are
listening. Until the Conservatives can recover that approach, they will never
again hold a working majority.
April 14, 2013 at 23:04
-
Spot on Mudplugger.
-
April 15, 2013 at 11:06
-
“Until the Conservatives can recover that approach…”
Or, more accurately, “Until the conservatives can recover their
party…”
April 14, 2013 at 19:46
-
Bravo, well said.
No i didn’t agree with a lot of her actions, i fell out with the system big
time over the closures of the mines, indeed those huge demonstrations about
the pit closures i joined, the only protest i have ever made.
However i have and had nothing but respect for Thatcher, despite my
disagreements with her, she had her principles and stuck to them, she had
honour and dignity and backbone ,and even dead on she stands head and
shoulders above the Pygmies that have followed her, those same ones who
wouldn’t know the meaning of honour if it bit them on the arse.
We shall see hundreds of good men and women respecting her the day of her
funeral, not the politicos i wouldn’t pee on them if they were on fire, no i
mean the hundreds of services and enforcement personell who will genuinly and
warmly return the respect and honour Thatcher showed to them.
Arguably the
only leader to have done so genuinely in living memory, apart from
Churchill.
The braying mob of half wit protesters would do well not to antagonise
those good men and true too much on the day.
The scheming backstabbing traitors who plotted to remove her dealt the
Conservative party a mortal blow, it may never recover, it doesn’t deserve to,
not to worry UKIP led by an unusual chap is fast becoming the real Tory
party.
Since that foul day the Conservatives haven’t produced a credible leader,
the present incumbent is a national joke.
Rest in Peace Ma’am.
You will be well remembered by those who can still
think.
Regards
Judd
- April 14, 2013 at 19:40
-
Just for the record, Judy Garland only made it to Number 9…………..
- April 14, 2013 at 22:34
-
Strange, the BBC are saying it reached No2, but I listened to the top
forty being announced on the radio and the station I listened to had it at
No9.
Is there more than one version of “top of the pops” these
days?
Can’t say as I’ve paid much attention since Alan Freeman’s day.
April 14, 2013 at 19:38
-
Well said, Sigillum. People are too quick to forget all the good she
achieved for this country.
April 14, 2013 at 18:45
-
Grantham used to be famous for traffic jams as the A1, the main road from
London to Yorkshire before the motorways were built, went through the town,
which had a few traffic lights. It was a good place to stop for lunch.
April
14, 2013 at 18:13
-
And another thing, in 1915 the King’s Liverpool Pals Battalions were in
training at Belton House up the road from Grantham where they were welcomed
and honoured by the people of Grantham before they marched off to France and
The Battle of the Somme.
- April
14, 2013 at 18:08
-
Having run a trace on her ancestry her father began as one of a large
family of shoemakers. His eyesight was poor so he was unfitted for the work.
So in 1911 he was a grocers assistant in a small shop in Oundle. By hard work
etc. etc. he came to be a small shopkeeper and a Methodist leading citizen in
a small town famous for its GNR/LNER locomotive shed. In short her ancestry
was skilled working class back to the early 19th Century at least. She made it
to Oxford University, did scientific research, went on the the Law and married
a rising executive famous for being a rugger referee. Her father became a
Conservative and so instead of many of her class did she rather than joining
Labour. That she made it to the top despite being literally a “counter jumper”
in the Tories is amazing. Additionally, she incurred the hatred of the Labour
grandee’s (far more snobbish that the Tory ones in my experience) and high
political economic intellectuals. In the UK political scene she was a “one
off” and not perfect by any means. Can’t they all simply knock off the
political pantomime acts and let her go with dignity?
- April 14, 2013 at 19:00
-
@ instead of many of her class did she rather than joining Labour. @
Although I was never in the booth with him, I’m pretty sure my dad voted
Conservative when I was a kid, and he drove trucks for a living. It was not
for nothing that the Conservatives were called “One Nation Tories”. I’m not
exactly sure when he switched to Labour but I have a sneaking suspicion he
felt bad about the Miners Strike; I recall him saying once that Scargill had
been right, because all the pits did get closed. I was too busy enjoying the
fruits of Thatcherism at the time to be bothered to discuss it further with
him….
Oddly enough, my folks always used to say that at least Maggie had let
them by their own house. But then, one day I looked at the Deeds and pointed
out to them they had signed for it in 1978……
…… Even people’s own history gets very muddled in the remembering.
April 14, 2013 at 18:04
-
The best one yet. Nice.
April 14, 2013 at 20:02
-
Gee thanx Mark, er Thatcher ?
April 14, 2013 at 18:04
-
Raving-Right, Loony Left or Fat Bastard Sayle.
By any criteria, there is absolutely no doubt at all that the ‘two nation
Tory’ Market Thatcher totally failed in her May ’79 mission staement, “To
Bring Harmony Where There Is Discord.”
- April 14, 2013 at 17:59
-
Alexei Sayle has also in recent years admitted that Marxism was a joke and
his parents a pair of pillocks for believing in it and brainwashing him as a
child too, although he loves them dearly nonetheless. I shouldn’t judge him
too harshly for not believing in Thatcherism and I can see why he might have
not have much time for the promotion of any -ism.
He blogs occasionally, although not recently.
http://www.alexeisayle.me/
April 14, 2013 at 17:53
-
‘Ding Dong The Witch is Dead’ Was a celebratory song in the Wizard of Oz on
the death of an enemy of Dorothy. Does this indicate that the present
celebrants who have taken this as their battle hymn are all ‘Friends of
Dorothy’? Just a thought.
April 14, 2013 at 16:48
-
Bravo. You speak for me, but far more cogently than I. Thank you.
- April 14, 2013 at 16:17
-
It is worth noting some interesting similarities between Lord Denning and
Margaret Thatcher.
Both did scientific/numerate degrees before taking up law. Denning studied
Maths, Maggie did chemistry.
They came from humble, lower middle class backgrounds. Denning (and his
high achiever brothers, google them) was the son of a draper, Maggie, as most
of the world knows by now, was a grocer’s daughter.
Both took up the jobs in the technical subjects they studied before moving
into law. Denning was in the Royal Engineers in the First World War, Maggie
was a chemist at J. Lyons.
Both came from unfashionable, distinctly non-metropolitan, rural towns
What stark contrasts between these two “People Like Us” and the current
shower that rule, sorry, ruin us all.
-
April 14, 2013 at 16:56
-
A very good point, Mr Parrot
April 14, 2013 at 17:13
-
Well said
April 14, 2013 at 16:04
-
I think Mrs Thatcher spoke and acted in general for the Silent Majority.
That’s why she kept winning elections, and with increased majorities. Quite
what Britain would have been like had she, or someone persuing similar
policies, not acted when she did, does not really bear thinking about.
Does she deserve a respectful sendoff? Oh, yes – very much so. The
screaming and bile from the blinkered left is just noise – and noise is about
their only substantive positive achievement, too.
April 14, 2013 at 15:58
-
My (perhaps youthful) enduring recollection is “why should the bloody
miners dictate when I may or may not go to the cinema”. Their rolling
blackouts determining when there’d be power at the venue.
And their bully-boy secondary picketing too.
{ 39 comments }