, with this difference: that the men who exercised it back then were at least men of taste and discrimination.” Theodore Dalrymple on Jonathan Ross’s interview with David Cameron.
“We have returned to the eighteenth-century days of state patronage
Bookmark the permalink.
Some good points. I despair when I see so many so called intelligent people foam at the mouth when you bring the words Maggie Thatcher into the conversation. Forget the multitude of great things she did for the country (for which even Blair is grateful) but harken as the foamy mouthed ones whinge and moan about her perceived brutality and ignorance etc. For God’s sake she was more working class and self made than Tony Blair ever was!
Dave,
I think they hated her because she was ‘self made’, rather than ‘State made’.
I think they hated her because she:
– destroyed working class communities
– sold off publicly owned assets to her mates in the private sector at a knock down prices
– created the conditions for pensions’ mis selling on a massive scale
– created a culture that was predicated upon individual greed rather than what was good for society (which she believed did not even exist)
– was responsbile for economic policies that resulted in 15% interest rates
– had an illiberal attitude on social issues and intrduced homophobic legislation
It just depends from what perspective you view her record.
Back on topic – there’s a good point somewheer in Dalrymple’s hyperbole. I don’t mind Jonathon Ross and don’t really care what he gets paid, but I think his questions to Cameron were crass. But Cameron’s got to take some of the blame here cos he wanted to go on Ross’s show for populist appeal and surely his advisors must have warned him about Ross – the crass questions were not out of character.
Who is destroying working class communities by bringing in all migrants -‘legal’ or illegal – to undercut their pay rates, displace them from jobs and eliminate their housing possibilities?
A Lurker, tell the full story
There’s no such thing as society.
Interview on (23 September 1987), published in Woman’s Own (October 31 1987). This quote is often cited out of context as proof of the alleged unfeeling lean of Thatcher’s government. It was a remark on “people constantly requesting government intervention” : “They are casting their problems at society. And, you know, there’s 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 after themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours.”
from http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher
sold off publicly owned assets to her mates in the private sector at a knock down prices – Because forcing taxpayers to subsidise dying industries makes such economic sense.
created the conditions for pensions’ mis selling on a massive scale – As if allowing people to save independent of the state did any such thing. Nevermind, Gordon the Thief has stolen so much of our pensions we’ll be working till the day we die. But let’s be thankful Maggie Thatcher doesn’t have anytning to do with it anymore.
created a culture that was predicated upon individual greed rather than what was good for society (which she believed did not even exist) – And being a Lefty means working for your own benefit equates to greed and never having to learn what her speech was actually about.
Oh I can’t be bothered. Really, people STILL believe this nonsense in 2006? Pitiful.
Wow…if he hates Thatcher for selling of the Coal Mines…..what does he think of Blair selling off the NHS???
LOL!!!
Anonymous wrote:
“Wow…if he hates Thatcher for selling of the Coal Mines…..what does he think of Blair selling off the NHS???”
A good point well made. I’m pretty horrified
Individual greed IS good for society.
Economics 101
A lurker
That really was a load of nonsense you spouted. You sound like Benn.
If you believe all that claptrap, you obviously have no clue about post-war economic history in this country.
A remark overheard in a pub back in the 1980s which made a big impression on me. Someone was talking about the Conservative ethos being “Me! Me! Me!2 ,and a guy with a Belfast accent put him right. He said “You don’t remember what it was like before. It was all “Us! Us! Us!”.
Reminded me what it was like to be low paid and not unionised in the mid 1970s, when prices and incomes policy was used to keep you low paid.
A lurker | 24.07.06 – 11:25 pm
Congratulations.
A perfect summary of what beeboids think and promulgate and why we must oppose them on this blog and everywhere.
They certainly brainwashed you.
Great article.
Dalrymple for PM I say. Or failing that, why not Dallrymple for Question Time.
Now there’s a thought!
I can’t believe that in 2006 anyone can really deny the vast economic benefits and pretty dire social impacts of Thatcherism, but it seems like people still see her as God or Satan. Ho hum.
On topic, the true shocker wasn’t the amusing line of questioning (and as somebody said it was hardly unexpected) but the fact that someone saw fit to edit out the subsequent scene when Ross praised Cameron to the hilt.
You can’t blame Jonothan Ross for what he does. The British public seem to like it and for the money he gets paid, it’s hardly surprising he’s doing it. And if he wasn’t asking that question, someone else would be.
Nor can you blame the Beeb for giving the punters what they want, nor Cameron for trying to get some publicity (and I guess distance himself from his Eton background). This is just a relection on society.
“Oh I can’t be bothered. Really, people STILL believe this nonsense in 2006? Pitiful.”
It’s understandable why people hated her at the time, but you can’t deny that she left a fantastic legacy – just ask Tony Blair.
Cockney
Enlighten me, what were the ‘pretty dire’ social impacts of Thatcherism and how did Thatcherism directly cause them. I don’t want a load of old flannel such as “well people were encouraged to be greedy and selfish and … blah blah blah.” Let’s have some actual Thatcher policies and how they directly impacted in a ‘preety dire’ way.
“Rather than elevate the culture, the BBC degrades it—at public expense. ”
personally speaking, i would tolerate Ross and all the other dumbing down, if it were counter balanced by science & engineering coverage.
my kid watches CBeebies, and none of its output even tries to explain what is beyond our planet Earth. (you know – simple stuff – what is the sun? what is the moon? etc etc. )
“A good point well made. I’m pretty horrified
A lurker | ”
every other major country in the world seems to manage without an NHS.
what makes Britain so “special” that it needs it?
“- destroyed working class communities”
yup. she sure did.
she allowed working class people to sell their inner city council homes and move out to the more pleasant leafy suburbs.
seems like millions of people didnt fancy hanging around in “working class communities”.
on a more personal note, thanks to Thatcher, lots of my relatives were able to sell up and move back to Ireland.
they had been in England for decades, living in council property, and longing to move back, but with no financial means of doing so. (low paid jobs)
thatcher gave them that opportunity.
I quite like Ross and his shows. He does what he does. The blame for this should be fairly and squarely with those that edited the programme.
Those against Thatcherism are merely pro-parasitism.
They want to extort and enslave their fellow man for their own benefit.
The advocation of socialism should be as illegal as conspiracy to steal is.
The advocation of socialism should be as illegal as conspiracy to steal is
Quite.
Archduke. If it’s a lack of cash that’s stopping you joining your relatives I’m sure I can organise a whip round. 😉
But the bigger question about Thatcher you have to ask yourself AD… did you think of her and crank one out like DC did? 🙂
More seriously, I’d love to vote Conservative, (*gasp!*) but I’m afraid Clause 28 had a massive impact on me when I was growing up and I really can’t bring myself to vote Tory even today. I once had a very nice chat with Edwina Currie about it.
“If it’s a lack of cash that’s stopping you joining your relatives I’m sure I can organise a whip round”
why thank you. My bank manager would be only too happy to accept it as a deposit on yet another property. Much obliged.
“I’m afraid Clause 28 had a massive impact on me when I was growing up”
i must admit , the small minded Statist conservatism of the likes of Anne Widdecombe , goes rather against my libertarian instincts.
Tne BBC’s employment of the likes of Ross and its other trashy entertainment serves a useful function for the state. They degrade the culture and dumb down the population so the state can justify employing ever more petty, bossy bureaucrats and the passing of ever more repressive laws to rectify the damage.
I’m afraid Clause 28 had a massive impact on me when I was growing up
Hang on, what gives you the right to dictate that young children should be taught about homosexuality and homosexual sex? If you want to teach your own children about them then you go right ahead, but you keep your hands off of other children. Look see, Clause 28, apart from anything else, was a line in the sand. It said “beyond this point we do not go in the classroom”. It didn’t say that individuals, that you, Alan, could not go beyond that line. It said the state will not do it in the classroom.
And what have we had since? Well young children are now being taught about oral sex! Wonderful, let’s all rejoice at the liberal nirvana we’re creating, but clause 28 was evil.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the left is populated by the perverted and the sick. They want to get their hands on the little ones to corrupt them. They want your daughters to be foul mouthed, illiterate and pregnant before they leave school. They can’t spell their own names but they’ll give you a great blow job.
So yeah, let’s keep on knocking down those nasty, conservative walls. Let’s give in to the demands and allow your sons to be buggered at 14, that’s what civilised societies do. Isn’t life so much better under the liberals than those horrid conservatives?
Pete_London, on this site please use less explicit language in future.
Edited By Siteowner
A Lurker:
“I don’t mind Jonathon Ross and don’t really care what he gets paid,…”
I don’t mind him either, but I DO bloody mind what he gets paid.
Let him take the higher offers (which apparently were made to him) from the other TV channels, and his fans can still watch him, but not at OUR expense.
pete london – i presume you are talking about this sort of thing:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1212734,00.html
i must admit , i was pretty shocked when i read it.
“Enlighten me, what were the ‘pretty dire’ social impacts of Thatcherism and how did Thatcherism directly cause them.”
F***ed around with state education funding – resulted in more stupidity. Cuts in local council spending and compulsive competitive tendering – meant that infrastructure work invariably got done by the cheapest (and usually worst) provided. Rising inequality, concentrated unemployment/poverty and economic instability – lots of poorer people get f***ed off and turn to crime/unemployment/excessive reproduction.
Stupid pikeys in unpleasant environment = lots of not nice stuff in 2006 to possibly a more extreme extent than for several generations.
Worse than continuing 70s economic suicide? no. Liberal teaching methods/ residual public sector crapness/subsequent Labour policy innocent? no. Thatcher as infallible redeemer to the grateful masses? no.
Sure in an anarchist/libertarian wet dream where everyone acts perfectly the above wouldn’t happen and ultimately it’s the fault of individual failings etc etc but ultimately if a government doesn’t site itself firmly in reality then they are imperfect. Cheers.
cockney -> i think folks like yourself forget that Eastern Europe went through a restructuring far more severe than Thatcherism. Russia is probably the worst example, though thankfully, they seem to be pulling through now.
(one wouldnt want anarchy and revolution in Russia again!)
archduke –
Yep, that’s it. It’s one of those reports which begger’s belief the more you read it. Look at that first sentence:
Encouraging schoolchildren to experiment with oral sex could prove the most effective way of curbing teenage pregnancy rates, a government study has found.
The subject is children under 16 years of age. How far have we sunk, just how sick and decadent has our culture become, that a British government study recommends encouraging children to have oral sex as a way of avoiding becoming pregnant?! No wonder foreigners pitch up in our country sans respect for anything. Is there anything of our culture left to respect?
And who’s to blame? Well it certainly ain’t conservatives who think that the best way for your daughter to avoid becoming pregnant before she’s 16 is to have oral sex. If you sat down with your neighbours daughter and ran through the options with her in this way you’d be run out of town, as long as you can run faster than your neighbour. But the British state, populated by an army of perverted, sick left wingers, thinks it’s just fine to do the same thing.
For opposing this madness, people like me, people who think it’s a matter of shame and dishonour for a minor to engage in any sexual activity let alone be pregnant, are routinely demonised by the perverted left. We live in sick times.
AD,
You’ll note that the Eastern European countries which went through a sensibly considered reconstruction process (Czech Republic?) rather than a more ideologically inspired ‘shock therapy’ came out rather better, indeed half of Russia was pining for Communism in the immediate aftermath – many still are. Might have been less of a disaster needing reconstruction admittedly.
Thatcher’s economic policies were infinitely beneficial for the country, other policies were a mixed bag. My point is that ‘Thatcherism’ as a universal principle didn’t create utopia and wouldn’t even if applied in their purest form over a long period unlike what some of her more fervant devotees would have us believe.
“How far have we sunk, just how sick and decadent has our culture become, that a British government study recommends encouraging children to have oral sex as a way of avoiding becoming pregnant?! ”
very Orwellian if you ask me. this sort of thing is the responsibility of PARENTS, not the state.
i personally, would avoid “sick and decadent” in my phrasing – i would personally call it “utter idiotic braindead stupidity of the highest order”.
“For opposing this madness, people like me, people who think it’s a matter of shame and dishonour for a minor to engage in any sexual activity let alone be pregnant, are routinely demonised by the perverted left. We live in sick times.”
i think you’ll find that the Muslim community feel the same way.
and with that sort of thing being pushed by the State, is it any wonder they feel isolated?
its a natural reaction against such crass, immoral, “decadent” behaviour.
we do have a problem – and god knows how we’re going to solve it.
Although, the Americans seem to be cracking it – teenage pregancies are at their lowest for decades right now.
we could do well to look across the pond to see what they are doing.
“For opposing this madness, people like me, people who think it’s a matter of shame and dishonour for a minor to engage in any sexual activity let alone be pregnant, are routinely demonised by the perverted left. We live in sick times.”
if its any consolation Pete, people in my neck of the woods are voting with their feet and getting their youngsters into the local Roman Catholic schools (i’m in the south of England). Of course, conversion to th e Vatican church is required, but most parents put up with that slight sacrifice.
the downside is that lapsed RC folks like myself are finding it bloody hard to get their kids in, because of all the C of E converts!!
but, its a consolation as i said. people are voting with their feet (and getting out the cheque book to make it so)
archduke –
It’s known that numbers are up regarding white Britons converting to islam. It’s slight and not a worry (yet), but it is happening and I have no doubts that a major cause is the moral collapse brought about by 50 years of leftism. The cultural marxists didn’t don’t wafge war against the family and Christianity for the fun of it. They know that these are just about the two pillers of civilised society in the West. With the retreat of both and the resulting, inevitable moral and behavioural anarchy, some of course for certainties elsewhere. “Oh look, the Left just happens to have imported 1.4 million muslims, I think I’ll give that a go.”
The fact that the Left hates those crude, rough, stupid, God-fearing, redneck, red-state Christians tells me they must be doing something right.
archduke –
It’s funny that, people leaving the Church of Kumbaya for a more robust approach. Being a lapsed Catholic myself, if I had children and was at the back of the queue, I’d have to start invoking my rights as a time served Member!
pete -> despite my years in England, i can put on the “Oirish” accent.
i should have no problems – fingers crossed anyway.
local RC school where i am is top dog in results – most go onto cambridge and oxford.
i probably have to join Opus Dei and the local Tory party, just to get the little nipper in!
aah – the sacrifices one makes.
Pete_London
Clause 28 had a huge impact on me because I’m gay. And like many gay teenagers I contemplated suicide. Being told by government that the best I could aspire to in life was a “pretend family” played a bit part in that.
You, sir. Are an idiot.
“The fact that the Left hates those crude, rough, stupid, God-fearing, redneck, red-state Christians tells me they must be doing something right.”
indeede, they are a factor – and i have no doubt about that, what with one of their representatives being the “born again” George W. Bush.
but its more than that – what seems to be happening , from my interpretation of it anyway, is a wholesale rejection of the values and mores of their parents.
parents who were , by and large , teenagers in the 60s or 70s.
if one adds the trauma of 911 and the Iraq War, then in these uncertain times, its is no wonder that American youngsters are starting to look for more moral certainty in their lives.
“Being told by government that the best I could aspire to in life was a “pretend family” played a bit part in that. ”
my attitude is that the government shouldnt even have got involved in that.
sex, family matters, religion, morality – they should be down to the parents and /or individuals.
in my view, the state shouldnt even get involved in any of that.
“You, sir. Are an idiot.”
thats a bit harsh. resorting to name calling just degrades your position.
one *can* have a reasonable debate without throwing personally directed insults around.
Archy (if I can be familiar) that was polite as I felt. Especially reading this on the original post “Pete_London, on this site please use less explicit language in future.”
But you are right, I’ll do better next time.
You are quite correct about Clause28 though. And indeed many Tories I know feel the same way.
Reading this thread I see raw emotion is being used in which to base one’s stance rather than factual information.
Was Maggie really that bad?
No!
She is a woman who like a lot of women understood how to get things done. To all you people shouting out this that and the other about how bad she was. Tell me.
Just where were you during the 3 day week, during the civil sector strikes, during the power cuts and during the many shortages which gripped this country.
Oh I remember it only too well. The problem here is that so good was she at running the country. (And please spare me she ruined it, as we are still feeling the benefits of her time in office) that she consigned labour to the dole queue for 18 years. During that 18 years in the wilderness Labour played a game of character assassination which started off in the kindergarten and brain washed them into adulthood. There lies the basis for the hatred for Maggie Thatcher. Yes she got a few things wrong but she got a lot more right. Now contrast that with this government and how even to this day they play the blame game in which to excuse their excess’s. Maggie Thatcher the milk snatcher? At least she never made them pay for going to school. Now I don’t see the media taking the piss out of Labour for doing just that.
If you brush away the media savy front which labour developed during those 18 years you’ll find that it is a lot worse than the Tories ever were.
I mean how many wars did the Tories take us into in 18 years?
pounce -> thatcher herself was nearly blown up by the IRA – and yet, she never abolished the Magna Carta , habeus corpus or introduced the Orwellian “Civil Contingencies Bill”.
and added to that – John Major was subject to a mortar attack on the garden of No.10. again – no loss in civil liberties.
it my firm view, that both those PMs really believed in the concept of freedom -lock ,stock and barrel, and they sure as hell werent going to let terrorists dictate the laws of England.
Tony Blair HAS allowed the terrorists to change the laws of this land.
THAT will be his woeful legacy.
Margaret Thatcher was perhaps the greatest European states(wo)man of the 20th Century. Her economic policies like privatisation were sound and copied all over Europe even by the countries the government of which didn’t share her ideological background.
The days of ever increasing government spending are over in Europe, largely thanks to her.
This does not, however, mean that her policies were always right.
Alan (the other one)
Clause 28 had a huge impact on me because I’m gay. And like many gay teenagers I contemplated suicide. Being told by government that the best I could aspire to in life was a “pretend family” played a bit part in that.
Section 29 prevented local authorities from promoting homosexuality and from
CHECK OUT THIS BBC SOLICITATION FOR TERRORIST TALES FROM GAZA!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5213174.stm
Do you live in Gaza? Have you been affected by violence in the region? Send us your experiences using the form below. If you are happy to speak to us further please include contact details.
Unofficial title “Jewless In Gaza”. Here’s my take…
Do you live in Denial?
Are you a muddle-headed leftist affected by pro-Hizbollah rhetoric in the media?
Send us your weird experiences using the form below. If you are happy to grunt and mouth platitudes to us, please include contact details.
As ever, reading these comments often leavers me with my jaw dropping to hit the keybord with the breathtaking bigotry and nonsense filled rhetoric, particualrly Pete_London’s diatribe about Clause 28 and that the left is “populated by the perverted and the sick” who want teeenage girls to give them great blowjobs.
I’m not so shocked by the rhetoric – there’s always a few random nutty posts on any politcal forum (left or right) but I’m staggered that no-one (other than the site ownwer who has warned Pete) who is prepared to castigate him for such lunatic postings. Indeed Archduke (whose posts I invariably diagree with but who posts in measured way) castigates Alan for calling Pete a fool but says nothing of Pete’s intemperate and offensive rantings.
For your info Pete the problem with Clause 28 was this:
– if you think that school have no place teaching sex ed (a reasonable view) then Clause 28 should have covered teaching about homo and hetro sexuality – but it didn’t. So it was a homophobicd piece of legislation
– Clause 28 effectively made it impossible for scholls to have bullying policies that directly dealyt woth homophobia, meaning loads of gaty kids continued to be bullied and the school was not allowed to have a policy in place tha allowed them to tackle it.
As to the rest of your rantings I will leave it to others form a view on whether they are coherent and reasonable. But to be honest I think any neutral reading your posts would be more inclined to see your posts as confirming the stereotype of the unpleasant, foaming at the mouth right wing bigot bogey man. You let the right down – cos even tho I’m on the left I know many people with sincerely held, respectfully argued views and they do not all fit the bogeyman stereotype. But you seem to have this fixed bogeyman view of anyone on the left and all it does is show you up as someone with limited intellect and a narrow mind.
Well that got screwed up.
….. and from promoting homosexuality as a pretend family unit, if I remember correctly.
Good.
I don’t homosexuality, heterosexuality or ANY kind of sexuality promoted, discussed oe mentioned in any classroom. Schools have no damn business dealing in any kind of sexuality. It’s not a matter for the state what you or I like to do behind closed doors.
I want children to be children, not sexualised little creatures. That campaigns were formed not to have sexuality of any kind banned from the classroom but instead to have yet more introduced tells me everything about the people behind those campaigns. Perverts are still perverts, whether gay or straight.