Baroness Thatcher has died

I would be interested to see the reaction from feminist groups if say, Germaine Greer died and it was celebrated with champagne and rowdy street parties as if she were Osama Bin Laden.

I suspect there would be cries of misogyny.

(I don't doubt that such celebration has to do with her policies, not her genitalia; however I think it is interesting about the double-standard so common in the left that if someone is your ideological opponent that different rules apply)

Thatcher did what was necessary. It was harsh, and she undoubtedly lacked a certain sensitivity about it, but the reality is if she had been more gentile she probably would not have accomplished anything.

Regardless of what you think of her political philosophy, I don't think it can be argued that she was a strong and resolute leader. We seem to be lacking in them these days, when with current global circumstances we probably need them most.

I think that, above all, is what will be missed about Baroness Thatcher. Perhaps not the woman herself, or her politics, but the resolve, the vision and the eloquence she possessed that is lacking in so many of today's political leaders.

RIP.

RIP Maggie...

Erica Ambler wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

Erica Ambler wrote:

5. Saying that caring for each other is what made Britain great is bullshit.

No, obviously the opposite. But "caring for each other" or in other words - understanding how human interrelationships and power relations work, is something that made America from the 1870-1970s great. Something that Thatcher, Rand and Hayek never understood.

Would you elaborate on that, Oh Shark? Can't say I know what you're talking about.

I see what he's getting at, but it's a clear trap. And I am certain that "understanding how power relations work" isn't what Rave meant by "caring for each other" and it certainly isn't what Thatcher and Rand meant when they "rejected" the primacy of that concept.

But it's really easy to make someone wrong by the kind of "this means that" logic you're using.

My argument is about Rand's (and vis-a-vis Thatcher, sine she inherited a good part of her ideology from Rand) relentless positivism.

None of you get what I'm on about, do you?

I'll fuck off then.

Erica Ambler wrote:

The world was changing and Thatcher saw that earlier than any other Western leader.

Indeed, I like to point out that in Australia it was the Labor Party that liberalised the economy during the 80's. Same in New Zealand.

Those that think Britain should've clung to the war-time relic that was the overregulated, moribund semi-socialist economy are in fantasyland. The United Kingdom would've gone the way of the other union of socialist states that was around at the time. Did China get to where it is today by expanding the government or the private sector? Has Australia had decades of continuous economic growth (under the stewardship of both major parties) by following the Thatcher model or the Heath/Callaghan/et al model? The economic realities are what they are.

Largo's Shark wrote:

None of you get what I'm on about, do you?

I'll fuck off then.

Wow. Get well soon, Shark. I just wanted you to clarify what you meant.

Largo's Shark wrote:

My argument is about Rand's (and vis-a-vis Thatcher, sine she inherited a good part of her ideology from Rand) relentless positivism.

You seem to be stretching here quite a bit is all I mean, Sharky. If your rhetorical argument was "Rand and Thatcher were relentless egoists" therefore they didn't "care about others" therefore they "didn't understand that working together made America great, see New Deal, WWII, etc" I could follow that argument, even if I disagreed.

But the connections you're drawing, if I'm getting you, are "Rand and Thatcher believed in logic and science" therefore "Rand and Thatcher didn't care and share" therefore "Rand and Thatcher don't understand human relationships" therefore "Rand and Thatcher don't understand what made America great 1870-1970".

Pretty sure positivism was a great part of what created the American superpower from 1870-1970: advances in medicine, telecommunications, industry, military power, scientific achievement, etc. etc. and I'm not sure how being a rationalist turns someone automatically into some kind of Vulcan who can't grasp Hew-mon E-mow-shuns and thus can't run a country?

I must be misinterpreting. Care to come back and elaborate? Being less cryptic this time and perhaps connecting some of the dots for us lower life-forms?

Vesper wrote:

I would be interested to see the reaction from feminist groups if say, Germaine Greer died and it was celebrated with champagne and rowdy street parties as if she were Osama Bin Laden.

I suspect there would be cries of misogyny.

(I don't doubt that such celebration has to do with her policies, not her genitalia; however I think it is interesting about the double-standard so common in the left that if someone is your ideological opponent that different rules apply)

Thatcher did what was necessary. It was harsh, and she undoubtedly lacked a certain sensitivity about it, but the reality is if she had been more gentile she probably would not have accomplished anything.

Regardless of what you think of her political philosophy, I don't think it can be argued that she was a strong and resolute leader. We seem to be lacking in them these days, when with current global circumstances we probably need them most.

I think that, above all, is what will be missed about Baroness Thatcher. Perhaps not the woman herself, or her politics, but the resolve, the vision and the eloquence she possessed that is lacking in so many of today's political leaders.

RIP.

She stated on several occasions during her tenure that she had little interest in being liked, so I'm sure she would not care much about a couple of thousand idiots celebrating in the streets, nor the tens of thousands who posted hateful things on social media.

But speaking in general, I don't believe "do not speak ill of the dead" should apply to public figures.

Ambler, please don't insult my intelligence or my grasp of history, economics, or politics. It makes your bum look big.

I hated her and I don't have to justify that opinion to anyone, so let's agree to disagree, shall we? And I won't invite you to my party.

I don't mean to insult your intelligence, Rave, but I don't see how you can divorce what happened to manufacturing and mining in Britain from what happened to it the rest of the Western world. I suppose it's nice to have a hate figure though. Makes things much simpler. Though of course the real question is why Labour didn't reverse any of the anti-union legislation and the answer is because in 10 years Thatcher reduced the number of strikes by 90%.

FWIW, I never liked Thatcher either, but think much of what she did was necessary. I've never thought liking a leader should enter the equation. That's what's wrong with the BBC 'love her or loath her' coverage for me. It oversimplifies matters.

There's also a very interesting and deliberate avoidance of the fact that Thatcher was a working class woman and the only truly non-establishment leader Britain has had. There's a feeling on the Oxbridge-educated liberal-left that working class means leftwing. Not the case, even today.

Not really sure she was 'working class' as such. Didn't her father own two shops? And she did marry a millionaire.

She didn't do much for women either. In fact she seemed to actively prevent any other females around.

I don't see what personality has to do with anyone's ability to do their job either, except for a chat show host. One of the most ridiculous criticisms about Brown was his accent and his blindness. Neither one anything to do with the job in hand.

It wasn't her appearance or her personality I objected to. And while some of her policies may have been unavoidable, but a lot of her decisions were basically about her demanding her way or the high way.

Well, I suppose working class depends on where you're standing, but I'd say a grocers daughter is working class - we're not talking about Tesco here. As for marrying into money, that doesn't change her origin.

The 'not doing much for women' argument is an interesting one. It's true she didn't see women as 'special needs' as most governments treat them, but in the sense of showing that it was not only possible for a woman to lead, but for her to be tough and not worry about whether she was liked, that's some example.

Oddly enough, I did object to her appearance and personality. I would have preferred a leather miniskirt and whip. That's just me, though.

Erica Ambler wrote:

FWIW, I never liked Thatcher either, but think much of what she did was necessary. I've never thought liking a leader should enter the equation. That's what's wrong with the BBC 'love her or loath her' coverage for me. It oversimplifies matters.

I just don't understand how someone can hate a politician with the kind of vitriol I've seen. I mean, Justin Trudeau is an idiot and his father really screwed over the West, but the fact is that Albert is really rich and prosperous despite all that, so what's the use of dancing on graves?

I mean, if my friends and family were killed in a military assault some politician ordered, then yes, the hatred made more sense.

Erica Ambler wrote:

Well, I suppose working class depends on where you're standing, but I'd say a grocers daughter is working class - we're not talking about Tesco here. As for marrying into money, that doesn't change her origin.

I would say that someone who owns two grocery stores is a small business owner. When I hear working class, I'd associate that with being a wage slave.
Having friends who were raised in families from both backgrounds, I would say there is a definite difference in mentality between the two. Those in my social circle who had parents in the former group grew up to be more daring in their career choices.

Even I'm shocked at some of the quotes from her decrying the working classes. I really don't think she would approve of being called working class.

I could post links but I can't be bothered. There's so much out there about her and quite honestly, I don't want to waste any more time on her than I absolutely have to. I have far more fun things to do than Google Thatcher, such as root canal. At my private dentist.

Salomé wrote:

Erica Ambler wrote:

Well, I suppose working class depends on where you're standing, but I'd say a grocers daughter is working class - we're not talking about Tesco here. As for marrying into money, that doesn't change her origin.

I would say that someone who owns two grocery stores is a small business owner. When I hear working class, I'd associate that with being a wage slave.
Having friends who were raised in families from both backgrounds, I would say there is a definite difference in mentality between the two. Those in my social circle who had parents in the former group grew up to be more daring in their career choices.

Class is an intangible thing. I take your point about a small business owner not being working class, but the middle classes in Britain tend to be the preserve of the professions and they would not regard a shop owner as 'one of them'. All bloody stupid, of course, but somehow inescapable even in the twenty-first century.

One of the things I forgot to mention about Thatcher's background is the fact that she was Northern. Now that England has such a pronounced North-South divide that's hard to credit.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

Erica Ambler wrote:

FWIW, I never liked Thatcher either, but think much of what she did was necessary. I've never thought liking a leader should enter the equation. That's what's wrong with the BBC 'love her or loath her' coverage for me. It oversimplifies matters.

I just don't understand how someone can hate a politician with the kind of vitriol I've seen. I mean, Justin Trudeau is an idiot and his father really screwed over the West, but the fact is that Albert is really rich and prosperous despite all that, so what's the use of dancing on graves?

.

people do unfortunately, FS. I'm no fan of Blair but were he to pop his clogs tomorrow I wouldn't celebrate his death nor react as to how I did, say, Gadaffi. People like to get petty. Way this country's going to a point.

Anarchists or whatever they are look set to kick off in Trafalgar Square Wednesday. Any excuse for a riot.

At leat Thatcher knew why she believed what she believed and could.speka intelligently about it. Puts her kilometres ahead of most modern right wing politicos in that respect, who blather contradictory talking points because its the Party Line and cant string a coherent sentence together to save their lives.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

At leat Thatcher knew why she believed what she believed and could.speka intelligently about it. Puts her kilometres ahead of most modern right wing politicos in that respect, who blather contradictory talking points because its the Party Line and cant string a coherent sentence together to save their lives.

Indeed so. Better than what we have now but then I'd imagine a drunk gorilla would do better than them all in the Commons.

First of all have any of you been close to an actual gorrila?

If so you know you will agree with anything the animal wants to do because of his size and strength. And if he is drunk you'll be wetting and cr*pping your pants because suddenly the animal is even less rational

No animal should be insulted when being compared to a politician these days the selfserving egotistical nincompoops that they are.

Interesting and unexpectedly equivocal piece by the noted novelist Ian McEwan:

Quote :

For those of us who were dismayed by her brisk distaste for that cosy state-dominated world, it was never enough to dislike her. We liked disliking her. She forced us to decide what was truly important.

In retrospect, in much dissenting commentary there was often a taint of unexamined sexism. Feminists disowned her by insisting that though she was a woman, she was not a sister. But what bound all opposition to Margaret Thatcher's programme was a suspicion that the grocer's daughter was intent on monetising human value, that she had no heart and, famously, cared little for the impulses that bind individuals into a society.

But if today's Guardian readers time-travelled to the late 70s they might be irritated to discover that tomorrow's TV listings were a state secret not shared with daily newspapers. A special licence was granted exclusively to the Radio Times. (No wonder it sold 7m copies a week). It was illegal to put an extension lead on your phone. You would need to wait six weeks for an engineer. There was only one state-approved answering machine available. Your local electricity "board" could be a very unfriendly place. Thatcher swept away those state monopolies in the new coinage of "privatisation" and transformed daily life in a way we now take for granted.

http://gu.com/p/3f25d

The BBC, who refused to play 'Relax' when it was top of the charts, and who skipped 'Die Young' following the Sandy Hook massacre for reasons of taste, look set to play a song celebrating the death of an 87 year old woman on their chart show. Funny, because I recall the left in this country going wild with mindless enthusiasm when Julia Gillard laid that ridiculous attack on Tony Abbott on the grounds that he once stood next to a stranger holding a sign with the word 'witch' on it, but I guess those sort of judgements go out of the window when the object of hate is a right-winger (and thus, among the enlightened and tolerant left, significantly less than human).

Recorded the House of Commons debate yesterday. Only worth it for the sole highlight - Glenda Jackson's speech. Mentioned the spiritual bankruptcy of most of Thatcher's policies, the disastrous Care in the Community act, and how with the closure of industry in the north, nothing substantial was put in its place, resulting in an entire manufacturing skills base out work. Expanding Callaghan's New Vocationalism and the creation of NVQs in 86 didn't cut it.

Thing is, Sharky, if you storm off in a huff, it's not possible to have a debate, much as I'd like to challenge the points you've raised. So seeing I'm in DM memory lane, I'll just say: