Portillo - 'Thatcher cared about the working man'
- Thread starter purenarcotic
- Start date
purenarcotic
Conveniently Pocket Sized
No, but I'm sure pissing on her grave will upset plenty of current tories. Job well done.
Despite the last three years, you can still hear various economists, politicians and business gurus right across the world calling for a deepening of neo-liberalism, as if it isn't what caused the crisis in the first place. They resemble nothing so much as those radical socialists, anarchists etc who fooled themselves into believing that the Soviet collapse would not only have no impact on their own ideas but create the space for them (that went well, didn't it?)
These neo-liberal ideologues will probably get away with it in the absence of a credible alternative.
No, but I'm sure pissing on her grave will upset plenty of current tories. Job well done.
Again, it doesn't matter if they're upset when they've won.
A few of them would probably like to piss on her grave themselves.
I couldn't give two shiny shites what she thinks.
She and her fans won't be bothered about that either.
It's ok i have some night nurse, i doubt i'll lose much sleep.
Why do you think it's about you?
You made it so.
Oh.
Yep. And jingoism. Anyone whose ever looked into the causes of the Falklands war of 1982 will be very interested to look into the conservative defence review of 1981 under (Sir) John Knott. Advocating the removal of HMS Endurance, whilst selling weapons to Argentina (anyone else remember the pic of the marines being held at gunpoint in Port Stanley just after the invasion - the argentinians were using UK made Sterling submachine guns), and at the same time making overtures about the Falklands population. (hugh Brichenos book on this is particularly interesting).
The point being this - flex the empires muscles, and we appear strong militarily in the eyes of the populace. Seemed to work.Thatch understood this.
Thatchs implementation of the polices of the Chicago school of economics - ie SELL everything - as first done by Pinochet (yeah, we don't talk about that much anymore do we Dave? Not so good an example to use to take the moral high ground) appealed to the working class for a simple reason. Tell Everyone that they can have a piece of the pie, and then they all think they are part of the landed gentry. They are not - they have just been suckered to buying what we already owned all along.
The working class, as was back then, no longer exists - in the sense of a large proportion of the population being unionized manual labouring types. Portillo in this sense, has not taken into account the way things have changed in the past thirty years. We are not who we were then.
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
I'd like to believe that, but I don't think that's true.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
whats in it for me was pretty obvious for voting Tory cheap houses give away shares nice if you had the cash at the moment.
the only people who are going to benefit from dave giving cash away is julian and his mates in the city
Well, Thatcher's governments well understood that in the end the main benificiaries of the privatisation scam she ran would be "the city", because they'd factored in that many "Sids" would sell their shares soon after flotation, and indeed that's what came to pass.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Spoken like a true Noddy.
While one might be able to apply that analysis to what we could call "tribal" Labour constituencies, even then there's a lot more to it than "doing what you're told". You obviously have a poor understanding of electoral history if you think that "following their political betters" was ever more than a minor factor - it wasn't. The major factor was a Labour party representing itself as more interested in equality and fairness than its competitors were.
Were you actually there in the '70s, Stoat? The "left wing ideological bollocks" was fringe. It had fuck-all purchase in the Labour party proper, which is why, come conference, you'd hear loads of composites that were full of "left wing ideological bollocks", few or none of which would be adopted.
Stop believing what the media represents as the history of the time, and address the history itself, if you dare.
Labour got their arses spanked for a heady mix of reasons, few of which had anything to do with taking the working classes for granted, reasons such as:
a) The well-documented atomisation of class-based voting from the early 1960s-onward;
b) Media-disseminated exaggerations of current events (the whole "winter of discontent" schtick);
c) The ongoing footsy-under-the-table games of Thatcher's inner circle of advisors and the intelligence community.
That's three out of several dozen. Three reasons that history supports, as opposed to your ideologically based interpretation of events, which history doesn't support, unless you're reading right-biased spiel by the likes of Ferguson or Davies.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
The problem being that our system of "parliamentary democracy" is designed in such a way that such corruption is a logical outcome. When an elected representative has no compulsion to actually represent the views/needs of their constituency, then following the party line makes corruption of some sort almost inevitable.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange aeons even death may die.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Margaret Hilda Thatcher is no Pallas Athene, though.
_angel_
.
What do you mean she tried to stop girls do science? I never heard of anything like that.
likesfish
You can't park here sir
yes but it looked like the "ordinary bloke" got a chance of some easy cash on its way to the city this time round it goes straight to the city zero scraps to anyone else. labour did suffer from the GLC effect quite a big fear that you'd vote for one thing and get a radically different thing.
purenarcotic
Conveniently Pocket Sized
I'm remembering this from my lectures and don't have my notes to hand so apologies. But anyway, in short, she was the Secretary of Education and when the equal opportunities act was passed (bear in mind this is pre national curriculum), did not want girls to be able to do the range of science subjects that boys would be able to do. Because science subjects were 'boys' subjects. Despite her being a chemistry graduate herself.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Depends which ideas we are talking about. Sadly you are right that some of the ideas appear to be alive and well, and are in the process of being taken to the next level. But Im not sure if they will make it to that level without a dramatic backlash, and some other ideas have been on life-support since the banking system went pear shaped.
Poo Flakes
Active Member
I cannot believe you would use 'aspirational'. The unionised working-class being what? Is aspirational just a pseudonym?
Dr Dolittle
Slightly loony
Don't know about her being 'caring', but she certainly knew which buttons to press to get working class support.
I think the difference between Thatcher and Cameron reflects the difference between the 1980s and the present more than them as individuals. In the 1980s the Tories could still buy the working class with things like council house sales, share selling from privatisation and social mobility aspirations, as well as unapologistically cracking down on the unions and the left generally. Now, all those opportunities have gone and neither party have anything to offer us.
It amuses me that the left are still so obsessed with Thatcher. But whatever you thought of her, she was still a great politician. By that I don't, of course, mean I liked her.
I think the difference between Thatcher and Cameron reflects the difference between the 1980s and the present more than them as individuals. In the 1980s the Tories could still buy the working class with things like council house sales, share selling from privatisation and social mobility aspirations, as well as unapologistically cracking down on the unions and the left generally. Now, all those opportunities have gone and neither party have anything to offer us.
It amuses me that the left are still so obsessed with Thatcher. But whatever you thought of her, she was still a great politician. By that I don't, of course, mean I liked her.
Again when you're sober please.
The left are obsessed with Thatcher because she's a reminder of their defeat, and one of the political architects of a process which has put the working class on the defensive for good.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Since when did the working class ever have the luxury of not needing to be on the defensive? And 'for good' is a silly notion, especially in the last couple of years where, despite a continued lack of sources of hope, the comfort zone of recent decades is giving way to turmoil.
I don't know what will happen in future, but the erosion of class identity & solidarity could actually turn out to the workers advantage under certain circumstances. Trouble and strife could cause people to reform along lines that do not have some of the pitfalls that split and spoilt things the last time around.
I don't know what will happen in future, but the erosion of class identity & solidarity could actually turn out to the workers advantage under certain circumstances. Trouble and strife could cause people to reform along lines that do not have some of the pitfalls that split and spoilt things the last time around.
What I mean is that the idea that the working class can somehow come to power has been reduced to the level of cult belief, confined to the political margins. The comfort zone of recent decades is indeed imploding before our eyes, but any opposition to the existing political and economic power structures is totally incoherent and seems set to remain so.
elbows
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't say its totally incoherent, but yeah its certainly much lacking in certain key areas. Its the 'set to remain so' bit that I question, necessity is the mother of invention and given long enough something more concrete may emerge. I've no idea if class will actually be central to the narrative of the struggle though, a different take on who counts as a worker and fragmented sense of identity may lead people to attack from a different angle.
Poo Flakes
Active Member
LLETSA, you are buying into all the Thatcher crap, even if you do not like her. First of, compared to the right, the left is not nearly as obsessed with Thatcher.
Thatcher was a terrible Prime Minister. The most obvious impact was the long-term unemployment in everywhere except London, which is not discussed, in economics or politics, as the fault of Thatcher.
We have spent our half our oil reserves funding the growth of financial services in London. Even now, the saviour of our economy is seen as financial services.
The worst is thatcher's mythology on the right (Labour and Conservatives). This has created a political class with an in-built 'neoliberalism' or 'bust' mentality.
EDIT: sorry language was terrible
I don't see what you're trying to argue with me about. I haven't denied most of what you're saying (even if you have an eccentric way of saying it). But the fact remains that Thatcher did speak to a section of the working class who aspired to what they considered something better than the traditional working class way of life and didn't particularly care what political direction it came from or the negative impact it might have on others.
And the fact that the left is still going on about Thatcher as if she was some kind of fascist dictator instead of just another PM of limited talents and intellect, and planning childish 'Thatcher's Dead' parties etc indicates a large degree of obsession.
Similar threads
