May the Fourth be with You!
90 years ago, the grocer’s wife gave birth to Margaret Hilda. Alfred and Beatrice, her parents, fed her on the food that was nearing the end of what would become known as its ‘sell by date’. She thrived.
There was no garden, fresh air was acquired by helping to deliver food to neighbours. Traffic thundered past the front door on busy North Parade – the traffic fumes mercifully failed to give young Margaret Autism or ADHD as it is said to have so afflicted many others.
At the tender age of 9 years old, she was folding election campaign material for the incumbent ‘Tory VIP’ Sir Victor Warrender in smoky back rooms, and emerged with nothing worse than a taste for politics.
Educated by the state, she gained a place at Somerville College, Oxford in defiance of the later ‘rule’ that you must pass a law to ensure that Oxford university admits children not educated at Eton. There she concentrated on gaining a degree in Chemistry, never feeling it necessary to carry a mattress around with her all day to prove how beastly the Oxford men were.
36 years ago today, May 4th 1979, that baby girl became Prime Minister of Britain – the first woman to do so.
Today, all these years later, we are apparently engaged in a fight to the death for ‘equality for women’, and an end to ‘establishment power’ which allegedly stops people like Russell Brand becoming Prime Minister.
Half the country eats courtesy of food banks according to activists – who never quite explain what they do with their welfare payments now that they don’t have to buy food any longer, nor why the Mumsnet tribe are only donating food which makes the poor – fat.
The other half of the country, according to another tribe of activists, is busy ministering to the needs of every ‘child’ who came of age just as Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister. Those of them who weren’t murdered by a Minister of State are only now finding the courage to come forward to accuse other MPs of heinous crimes against their young bodies.
How on earth did one woman manage to dodge murderous MPs, an establishment that intimidated and silenced women everywhere, wolf whistling builders destroying her self confidence, a party leader who allegedly threw anyone inconvenient off his yacht, and a social system which left those forced to eat food that the grocer couldn’t sell so fat that they needed to be fitted with wheels, or taken out for the day via a crane…?
Incredible, but true – Margaret Thatcher did. I salute her. I would vote for any party that elected her as its leader. Even Labour.
That the Queen had come to the Throne in 1953 convinced many women that they could indeed do anything – but that was an accident of birth. There were other women such a Rose Heilbron, (a humble Scouse, there’s a surprise) one of the first women to gain a double first in Law, the first to be appointed King’s Counsel, one of the first to be appointed as a High Court Judge, who had hauled herself up from humble beginnings. Betty Boothroyd was a mill workers daughter, who supported herself high kicking with the Tiller Girls of all things. She entered parliament in 1973 and retired as the highly respected Speaker.
None of these women ‘benefitted’ from the feminist movement. Margaret Thatcher was a real feminist. Not for what she said but for what she did. It wasn’t just the so called gender ‘glass’ ceiling that she broke – but a ‘class’ ceiling.
Today’s young women speak combative rhetoric about equal rights, empowerment, and sexist slights, not to mention the currently fashionable ‘intersectional’ oppression and domination of them by those ‘foul’ men; TV repeats endless advertisements for ‘sponsor a girl’ – to save them from a life that ‘will be horrible’…1 in 3 girls will be ‘forced into an underage marriage’…read the small print on their web site, and you will find that their definition of an under age marriage is:
Child marriage involves either one or both spouses being children and may take place under civil, religious or customary laws with or without formal registration. A child is usually someone under 18.
In a 2011 Reuters/Ipsos MORI poll about prime ministers of the last 30 years, we rated Tony Blair significantly higher in ‘likability’ than Margaret Thatcher. But in the same poll, she topped the charts in ‘capability.’ She wasn’t worried about being ‘liked’ – she wanted to get the job done.
Morally, socially, the UK is in a terrible mess right now; getting the job done, thinking the unthinkable, is what is desperately needed, regardless of which political persuasion achieves it.
The Centre for Policy Studies was established by Margaret Thatcher in 1974 to ‘think the unthinkable’. 40 years ago. I turned to them for some background material on this anniversary on her becoming Prime Minister. It didn’t take long for them to forget:
No search results for Thatcher!
Margaret Thatcher wasn’t afraid of having strong opinions and fighting for them – which of the current crop of Pigmies will you be voting for?
It’s still Nigel Farage for me. Not especially for his policies; having lived in Europe for the past seven years, I am aware of several advantages of belonging to the European Union that the British media never mention. I am also aware that Britain has much to learn from the continent – how to run a National Health Service standing head and shoulders above the rest of them, closely followed by how to run a train service…
However, Farage is the only one of the party leaders that gives any indication that he has an internal moral compass; that he’s not driven by a desire to be ‘liked’, but a desire to get the job done.
He also gives every indication of being prepared to stick two fingers up to the hysterical feminist activists that Cameron and Miliband appear terrified of. We don’t need a Prime Minister terrified of a bunch of Doc Marten booted activists.
- Alex
May 4, 2015 at 8:53 am -
I’ve sort of come to the conclusion that secretly, deep down, these modern day “feminists”, don’t see the men as the problem. What they really don’t like are the successful, powerful women, who have got into positions of power without bleating on about how “unfair the system is”. As you rightly say, women like Margaret Thatcher, Betty Boothroyd, Nancy Astor, Bessie Braddock and many others managed to become MP’s despite the “family unfriendly hours” and “glass ceiling”. But of course these examples do not fit the “feminist” agenda. In all spheres of human endeavour, there have been many, many prominent women. They had their goals, and yes they made compromises, or should that be decisions?, in order to get where they wanted to be. They didn’t need, or didn’t ask for, special treatment. They didn’t need, or didn’t ask for “fast tracking”. They didn’t need, or didn’t ask for “women only shortlists”. They did it based solely on their own merits, self-belief and force of character.
I too admit to being an admirer of Margaret Thatcher. It was because of her that I became actively involved in local politics. It was because of the useless idiots who succeeded her that I ceased that involvement. I’m still waiting for someone who comes somewhere near her level. This time round I will be voting UKIP.
- corevalue
May 4, 2015 at 9:10 am -
UKIP for me as well, if only to ensure that the candidate doesn’t lose her deposit. As for mattress lady, things look very bleak, the object of her protest is sueing Columbia university.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/24/the-text-of-the-mattress-girl-lawsuit-will-shock-you/
- Joe Public
May 4, 2015 at 10:15 am -
Like her or loathe her, Maggie had balls.
UKIP have a number of eminently sensible policies; and, haven’t made-up costly policies ‘on-the-hoof’ promising to spend ever more of voters’ grandkids’ taxes.
They’ve also yet to prove they can so successfully screw-up this country – so for a change:
https://orderorder.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/sod-the-lot-vote-ukip1.jpg?w=900
- John Galt
May 4, 2015 at 10:26 am -
Personally I thought Maggie Thatcher was a divisive and unlike-able politician who polarised opinion in this country.
She brought an end to the more collaborative politics and turned things difficult subjects such as taxation and welfare from areas of grey complexity to a sharp contrast of black-and-white (which was itself a fiction), you were either for her or against her or simply too lily livered to do anything either way (the massed ranks of the Tory wets).
Some of the things she achieved, such as legislation controlling the excesses of unions had been recognized and attempted under the Labour government of Harold Wilson (i.e. “In Place of Strife”) as well as attempted, but ultimately resisted under the Tory administration of Ted Heath (mainly due to direct union attack).
So to characterise Maggie Thatcher, she was someone who did a lot of necessary and unpleasant things, but was generally hated as much as she was admired and even the admiration tended to be grudging.
Was she a good prime minister? on the whole I would say she was good, but not great. She unblocked a log jam in political decision making that had been going on since the end of WWII and dealt with forces which were undermining the country (inflation and the unions), but she did so in such a way that people and communities felt treated very badly and there was very little done in the way of transitional arrangements for devastated communities or industries, they were expected to take a body blow and then pick themselves up by their bootstraps (a typical Maggie attitude), but most were unable to do this.
I still think the way she was forced from power was disgusting and the Tories, quite rightly, still suffer from the consequences of this.
In short, I thank her for her efforts, but this pedestalization of her is inappropriate, she was a politician, not Joan of Arc.
- Engineer
May 4, 2015 at 10:28 am -
Margaret Thatcher was the best Prime Minister of my lifetime. She turned a basket-case economy and a demoralised country into a functioning economy and a country with some pride in itself. Did she solve all the problems? No – but she did significantly improve matters on most of the bigger issues of the day. She was a leader.
Charles Moore wrote in his Telegraph article last Saturday that an aquintance of his had described the current leaders of the three main political parties as “three flaming drips”. Leaving aside the inherent contradiction of “flaming” and “drip”, I think it pretty well sums up where we are. None of them seem to have any sort of belief in what the country should be like, or if they do, any idea how to get there. The best political leaders about at the moment are Farage and Sturgeon; whilst I passionately disagree with what Sturgeon stands for, at least we know what it is, and she does seem pretty capable as a political operator. I do have much more in common with what Farage stands for, and I respect his tenacity in campaigning without resorting to the slagging off and dirty tricks that others have directed at him and his party. Another UKIP vote from me, I think.
- binao
May 4, 2015 at 12:49 pm -
Agreed.
When I hear the familiar tales of destruction of the economy by Thatcher, I know the speaker either wasn’t there, or was part of the problem. I was there, in industry, I know what was happening.
With Farage I think individual policies are an irrelevant distraction. What does matter is the main message, Europe, and his candour, a much undervalued quality. He’s prepared to say what he thinks knowing some don’t agree- you know where you stand with him; almost unique in politicians. Is that called having a personality?
Why is the left (I include a lot of Tories in this) so heavily represented by wealthy, well educated er…hyperactive sperm donors?- cascadian
May 4, 2015 at 4:07 pm -
” He’s prepared to say what he thinks knowing some don’t agree- you know where you stand with him; almost unique in politicians. Is that called having a personality?”…………………I believe it is called honesty and having an opinion formed from facts, all too rare commodities in politicians, no wonder it was hard to recognize.
Compare Farage to the camoron who will say just about anything to appease blocs of voters, one of the most notable in this election cycle being he would freeze train fares (charged by private companies) for five years, this from a supposed business-friendly party leader, espousing essentially communism. The nonsense that emanates from the three main party leaders is beyond laughable and only emphasise their willingness to extend the seventy year decline of the UK.
Were I able to vote, I would undoubtedly vote for UKIP. I hope that they might upset several incumbents throughout the liebour northern and east coast “safe seats”, hopefully the “swivel eyed loons” will also register their displeasure to the camoron and cause some marginals to change hands too. If nothing else I hope they cause the removal of the inept and dishonest camoron.
- cascadian
- binao
- Ms Mildred
May 4, 2015 at 11:10 am -
I knew several men who could get into a rage the minute Maggie’s name came into the conversation. Several pleasant evenings wrecked due to the party pooper effect. Churchill was thought charismatic, but there are recent attempts to smear his WW2 record with Boer war, Gallipolli etc. Try being an adult in Britain when invasion threatened. I was a child and unafraid. Blair was the deceitful charmer. They are so dangerous when they tell us lies and warmonger. I disliked the man on sight, distrusted him mightily. I never ‘pedestalized’ Maggie but she was safe hands for many of us after the perilous seventies. Attlee would never get in these days but he was a safe and sure pair of hands. As for feminism, it reminds me of taking a wrong turn and landing up in a smelly, messy rubbish tip of drunkeness, swearing, a blame/victim culture tattoos, spiky, back destructing heels, thongs. last but not least, some very strange eyebrows!!!! My proxy vote went in some time back. A friend with a UKIP rosette paused from campaigning to check how the cataract op went. Didn’t vote for UKIP. We live in dodgy times, not make them even more dodgy.
- The Blocked Dwarf
May 4, 2015 at 11:56 am -
IF I was even registered to vote then the party that DIDN’T feel the need to ignore my LARGE NEON “NO SPAM” letter box sign would surely get my vote! I don’t care if you want Free Vegan, Organic, Fair Trade Spag Bol for all on Tuesdays and to paint Toweress Bridge a fetching shade pink- if you don’t fire up the mimeograph and tell me so then you ARE the party for me.
- JimmyGiro
May 4, 2015 at 12:59 pm -
Who voted for feminism?
When a new ‘wave’ of feminism introduces itself in our world, who is it that decides when and how? I don’t recall women, or anybody else for that matter, being invited to vote for or against. Women are just supposed to acquiesce; as an edict from an anonymous fashionable dictator.
If you criticise feminism, a feminist is apt to call you a misogynist. Yet would you be an anti German if you were to criticise National Socialism?
Of course, feminists are not the same as Nazis; since the latter received a democratic mandate to represent the German people!
- Sigillum
May 4, 2015 at 1:36 pm -
It appears that Labour, the party of radical progression and feminism, has been holding election meetings in Birmingham. Nothing unusual about that, you might say! But lo! There is a slight “catch”, in that the meting was openly segregated, women and men not allowed to sit together. All the more deliciously ironic since one of the guests of honour was Jack Dromey MR, non other than spouse of the High Priest-person of Feminism and constant winner of my “stupidest person in Britain” award, Harriet Harperson:
As a cutting tweet on my time line observed, “36 years ago Britain had its first female MP. We now have political meetings segregated by gender and endorsed by senior MPs. That went well.”
Indeed. Such supine kow towing tells me all I need to know of Labour’s fitness to rule, even if I hadn’t formed the view that as a party it was irresponsibly profligate and sinister. No wonder Beaker wants to pass a law banning “Islamophobia”. I nearly swote then.
As for that, here is Rod Liddle’s utter destruction of Red Ed’s policy, also in The Speccy
- cascadian
May 4, 2015 at 3:33 pm -
Hard to disagree with the landlady’s depiction of modern feminism, it has bred a generation of mostly incapable adherents who claim as of right that possession of a vagina will make them better managers/politicians.
However since the resident sub-editor seems to be on sabbatical could we please show proper regard for capable women and correct the spelling mistake here-Rose Heilbron, (a humble Souse, there’s a surprise).
- English Pensioner
May 4, 2015 at 4:04 pm -
As pointed out by Guido and other bloggers, Labour is happy to have segregation at a public meeting in Birmingham
http://order-order.com/2015/05/02/everydaysexualsegregation/#_@/xQVMBPe2YVRSCg
I wonder what Harriet thinks whilst sitting in her pink feminist bus? - Alexander Baron
May 4, 2015 at 4:15 pm -
The Queen is a truly remarkable woman, nearly 90 and still going like an express train. It never ceases to amaze me the left wing idiots who call her a parasite, etc. None of them would do her “job” for a week.
- Mudplugger
May 4, 2015 at 4:32 pm -
Thatcher and Sturgeon, like Churchill before them, proved to be the right leaders at the right time for their people. All flawed undoubtedly, but their serendipitous arrival on the scene at exactly the right time and place for their breed of politics and government guaranteed that they would all achieve impact beyond the capabilities of any character-free, grey-suited alternatives.
Living in the North, the popular opinion of Thatcher was, and remains, of an evil monster intent solely on abusing the working-class, nothing else. It was a brave man who challenged that view openly, especially of you were a man.What’s interesting about both Thatcher and Sturgeon is that they both rose to lead despite being women, not because of it. I regard and respect both as powerful and successful politicians, more so than most male politicians of their generations, but it doesn’t matter to me that they are women.
I’m not a feminist, I’m an equalist – there is no reason to treat men and women differently in a field where they are fundamentally equal. Discounting their policies, I would always rather have a ‘leader’ like Thatcher or Sturgeon, a real leader, than any of the pale, weak, ineffectual, male offerings available.
At a more local level, would our Landlady command more of our respect if she was a Landlord ? The fact that she’s of the bumpy-chest variety matters not a jot in our Snug – she’s bloody good at what she does, whatever her chromosome balance and that’s why we’re all here.- The Blocked Dwarf
May 4, 2015 at 7:39 pm -
The fact that she’s of the bumpy-chest variety matters not a jot in our Snug
Dear God man! Surely you don’t mean ‘Mine Host’ is a female, a daughter of Eve?! What is the world coming to when a man can’t escape the horrors of domestic life and drink with his peers, his male peers, in a Woman Free Environment. Everyone knows the excessive company of females weakens the brain….
- Mudplugger
May 4, 2015 at 8:21 pm -
My dear Mr Dwarf, I hope that traumatic, if belated, discovery does not deter you from visiting these premises frequently, imbibing of the nectar of debate and, with the due passage of time, perhaps realising that, whilst the company of women does not actually weaken the brain, its absence may indeed have a negative effect on ones eyesight, as I was often reliably informed as a teenager many decades ago.
To add further to life’s contradictions, there has been a degree of confusion experienced by some regarding the status of the bodily equipment borne by Petunia of this parish – prepare yourself to be similarly traumatised in that regard too.
- Mudplugger
- The Blocked Dwarf
- Carol42
May 4, 2015 at 5:25 pm -
I agree with every word, anyone who thinks everything was fine before Mrs. Thatcher certainly wasn’t there. There were many great female politicians who got there on merit and I have no respect for those who came from quotas or all female shortlists, remember Blairs babes? How many of them turned out to be any use. Can’t understand why we need equal numbers anyway, generally women are less interested and have other priorities. I noted too that the mad Harriet changed the all woman shortlist to get her husband in, he had tried a few times and failed to be selected, he does come across as quite stupid. I deplored the way the Conservatives deposed Mrs. Thatcher and it served them right they paid dearly for it since.
- Jim McLean
May 4, 2015 at 6:05 pm -
A marvellously written article. Why the hell can we not have this standard of writing and analysis in the mainstream press? They all have their comment and editorial sections. None come close to Anna Raccoon.
- Juliet 46
May 4, 2015 at 8:47 pm -
I became a member of a political party for the first time at the grand old age of 67 and joined U K I P. UKIP seems to me to be the only hope of this country regaining some acknowledgement of personal responsibility – not to have everything ordered and prescribed (or Proscribed!) by the State, and to have all peoples’ views and opinions taken into account. We should NOT be TOLD what we are allowed to think or what to say by anyone. From smoking bans in pubs to the lack of the freedom to express an opinion without it being some –phobia or –ist – Lord, what happened to this country?
If only to stick my two fingers up to the Establishment, I vote U K I P. I hope it does what it says on the tin.
- John Derbyshire
May 4, 2015 at 8:52 pm -
Many years ago, we used to have reporters who would file back reports on wars, either sitting in the airport terminal or from the neighbouring country. Now we have you telling us what is going on in the United Kingdom whilst living in the South West of France probably as a tax exile. My view is to return to the United Kingdom and I will take you to meet people who rely upon food banks and you can discuss how they got themselves into poverty. I shall also take you to meet victims of child abuse and you can discuss with them why they are liars, or suffer from False Memory Syndrome. As this be a two way exchange I hope you will introduce me to members of the Establishment who regulary meet you in the South West of France.
- Mudplugger
May 4, 2015 at 8:56 pm -
Do try to keep up, John.
- Mudplugger
- John Derbyshire
May 4, 2015 at 9:10 pm -
He was talking about the estimated 6 million people who declined to register their right to vote (mainly an historic effect of the poll tax – if you weren’t on the electoral register you didn’t get a tax bill), some merely ‘don’t want to be easily traceable’ for various nefarious reasons as well as some sound reasons.
How sad, you fail to see the reality of British Democracy it is a Pseudo-Democracy
a political system which calls itself democratic, but offers no real choice for the citizens. This lack of choice can come from limited amount of diverse parties eligible for a vote, cemented power structures which are not really affected by any vote, no availability of a voting option “none of the above” for voters who favour change to the current political landscape, no direct democratic means, et cetera …
Older people still see elections as a democratic process, but for a rowing number they see it is for what it is and what is more worrying it seems the political elite seem to have placed themselves above the Law.- Cascadian
May 4, 2015 at 11:35 pm -
You have only to read Juliet 46 comment to realise there is an alternative. Your vote for UKIP might relieve some of the problems you describe, it is a far superior alternative to the “don’t vote it only encourages them” fools.
- Cascadian
- The Jannie
May 4, 2015 at 10:06 pm -
“you fail to see the reality of British Democracy it is a Pseudo-Democracy a political system which calls itself democratic, but offers no real choice for the citizens. ”
If you want to fool people first give them a vote. (loosely quoted from someone famous)
- Robert Edwards
May 4, 2015 at 11:10 pm -
I never really saw Thatcher as a Tory; she took a look at the smug, post-war consensus and how it was failing and decided, as best she could, that she would adjust it somewhat.
This she accomplished by ripping its face off and kicking it in the balls. In this, she was a revolutionary.
I met her once, when she was Education Secretary. She had something about her; if she spoke to you, you felt, at that moment, that you were the only other person in the world. But she was not likeable. I understand that Hitler had the same trick.
Her enemies were pathetic, and, 36 years on, those of them still alive are still scared of her, because, like Mr. Farage, she brought out a feeling in the country which many would rather remained suppressed under the knout.
But I am not one of those…
- Hubert Rawlinson
May 5, 2015 at 3:51 am -
“Lady Thatcher is great theatre as long as someone else is writing her lines; she hasn’t got a clue.” Alfred Sherman, co founder and Director of “The Centre For Policy Studies”, guru and speach writer to Sir Keith Joseph and the brains/intellect, along with the the likes of Milton Friedman and Enoch Powell, behind what would, for a brief period in the mid 1970s, become known as “Josephism.”
Joseph, Powell and Sherman all made a number of speeches/pronouncements that effectively destroyed any chances they may have had of realistically going for the top job, so eventually Sherman, Joseph and Friedman, along with Airey Neave and with the help of the Saatchi Brothers re branded the whole idea as “Thatcherism.” The rest is, as they say, and for better or worse, our history.
Ultimately Shermans views proved to be too extreme even for the Iron Lady herself, quotes like “As for the lumpen proletariat, coloured people and the Irish, let’s face it, the only way to hold them in check is to have enough well-armed and properly trained police.” did little to endear him to either the general public or to politicians. He would soon find himself “outside the tent.”
In her memoirs Lady Thatcher praised his “Brilliance” and in 2005 she stated that “We could have never defeated socialism if it hadn’t been for Sir Alfred.” Sir Alfred’s views on Lady Thatcher opened this comment, I will allow them to close it also. “Lady Thatcher is great theatre as long as someone else is writing her lines; she hasn’t got a clue”
- JimmyGiro
May 5, 2015 at 6:54 am -
Do you believe the IRA killed Airey Neave?
- Hubert Rawlinson
May 5, 2015 at 10:14 am -
No, not by the IRA, he was killed by the INLA. Then again, that is a huge can of worms isn’t it!? Applying “Occum’s Razor” to the question would suggest that he was indeed killed by the INLA. As too whether or not they had any “help” from elements within the British and or US Secret Services, is another matter. Enoch Powell was certainly convinced that it was an “Inside Job.” Rumour, whispers and conspiracy theory abound!
- Moor Larkin
May 5, 2015 at 10:22 am -
I thought Maggie was a buddy of his? She never knew? She condoned it anyway? Sounds a bit far-fetched to me. Given the Irish blew her up too in 1984 (to more or less universal historical silence from the media and the lefties) isn’t the Occam’s razor more about “say what you see?”.
- Hubert Rawlinson
May 5, 2015 at 12:18 pm -
I think we must have gotten our wires crossed Moor. Yes they were close friends, in fact he was very much her mentor and was largely responsible for the transformation of her image into the iconic one that we all remember.
I am certain that she had no knowledge of, let alone any involvement in, the plot to assassinate Neave. By “inside job” Powell was referring to elements within the british secret services, not the Tory party!
As for Occum’s razor, the principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. This is often called the “Law of Parsimony.” Anyhow, I had best stop now, lest our talk of Mr Occum and his razor should rouse the eldritch horror that is “Solomonoff’s theory of inductive inference.” Oh the humanity!
- Moor Larkin
May 5, 2015 at 3:50 pm -
If the British “Secret Services” were as clever as the Conspiracists believe them to be, the world would no doubt be a far, far better place than it is. Ian Fleming and his Jimmy Bond seems to have done more for them than pretty much anything they’ve ever done for themselves or anyone else.
“The stories also show how elites in Britain have used the aura of secret knowledge as a way of maintaining their power. But as their power waned the “secrets” became weirder and weirder. They were helped in this by another group who also felt their power was waning – journalists. And together the journalists and spies concocted a strange, dark world of treachery and deceit which bore very little relationship to what was really going on. And still doesn’t. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/entries/3662a707-0af9-3149-963f-47bea720b460
- Moor Larkin
- Hubert Rawlinson
- Moor Larkin
- Hubert Rawlinson
- Engineer
May 5, 2015 at 8:57 am -
If you’re saying that Margaret Thatcher was better at doing than at bullshitting, I respect her even more. The bullshitting speech-writers should be in the second rank; the analytical and decisive minds in the first.
Consired Tony Blair; a brilliant speech-writer and orator, but ultimately his leadership failed the country, in so many ways.
- Hubert Rawlinson
May 5, 2015 at 11:13 am -
No, what I am saying is that almost all of the political ideology that we now commonly refer to as “Thatcherism” was actually the product of the “analytical and decisive” minds of Alfred Sherman, Milton Friedman, Enoch Powell, Keith Joseph and Airey Neave. Neave would have liked the top job for himself and would probably have gotten it, but his 1959 heart attack put paid his ambitions. The then Tory Chief Whip, a certain Edward Heath, was said to have told Neave that his political career was as good as finished, Neave never forgave Heath and would one day have his revenge.
In December 1974 Neave told Heath to stand down for the good of the party and during the final two months of 1974, set about the task of hand picking a contender to stand against Heath, Neave would act as their campain manager. Thatcher was very far from being his first choice! It was only after he had already asked first Keith Joseph then William Whitelaw and finally Edward du Cann to stand, and all three had refused, that Neave agreed to be the campaign manager for Margaret Thatcher’s attempt to become leader of the Conservative Party.
- Hubert Rawlinson
- JimmyGiro
- Moor Larkin
May 5, 2015 at 10:00 am -
It’s fascinating to note that “Historical Sex Abuse” seems to have been invented in about 1997 and implicated Maggie’s dad.
“he assaults supposedly took place about 60 years ago… Peter Hadlow, 76, lived next-door-but-one…and overheard many conversations about the scandal when working as an apprentice electrician. “Quite a broad spectrum of people said it… “I would hear the boss talking about it. My ears were flapping – that sounds juicy, I thought “These stories were bandied about, and eventually you begin to believe there was some truth in them. But … that sort of thing got hushed up. It was a question of who do you believe – a teenage girl, or Mr —–?” Mr Hadlow still lives in the same area of the town and added: “Funnily enough, when he gave up running the shop, he changed into a really nice bloke”. More significant still were the comments of a 74-year-old woman… who told the Independent on Sunday that she had been molested on frequent occasions… when she worked in his shop, aged just 15…”
http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/sting-in-tale_2.html - TheNoseyMole
May 6, 2015 at 3:02 am -
My father is a lifelong socialist and he hates everything that Maggie stood for, but on many occasions he has said he admired her strength of character, integrity and resolve. Unlike the current shower that the electorate is expected to choose from on Thursday even he shakes his head at the incompetance of them.
{ 58 comments… read them below or add one }