The Hatred of Maggie


by Anna Raccoon
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/AnnaRaccoon/~3/lAMfe-NhemI/

Post image for The Hatred of Maggie

The Hatred of Maggie

I understand that at certain “street parties” held to “celebrate” the passing of the late Lady Thatcher one of the songs of choice was “Ding, dong, the wicked witch is dead.” As others have observed, many of the charming, upstanding individuals who attended the gay events were not even born when Thatcher came to power. Why was she so hated? Why does this persist?

I think the first reason is very simple. She broke all taboos by being a woman. She emerged from a world dominated by the male Old Boy Network in Parliament and on the wider political stage. The heavyweight union bosses who wielded power over much of the country like so many latter day robber barons were not moisturizing metrosexuals. They were a largely Marxist bunch of middle aged, heavy hitting chauvinists. Neither the comfortable, old school and discredited public school boys of the Right who had been content to let the country stagger to towards a lingering, less than genteel obscurity, nor the Left’s bully boys of the Politburo-in-waiting looked well on this alien, active, female persona who was willing to challenge their entrenched interests.

But that alone does not explain it. I think part of the answer lies in the cross fertilization of “feminism” and left wing ideology.

One of the nastiest intellectual habits of the intellectual Left is that it prescribes set political agendas or menus which must be followed by rote or diktat, and in full. If the first course is the emancipation and equal treatment of women, the main course must be a smorgasbord of left of centre, politically correct social attitudes. Any deviation from this norm, and from this prescribed package of values and policies provokes a “moral” outrage which requires the vilification of the “deviant” who has strayed from orthodoxy. That vilification can often be carried out with all the zeal of a medieval religious fanatic confronting a so called “heretic”, that is someone who had the temerity not to follow God’s will as revealed to the zealot.

Therefore, so much greater the ire and rage of the Left that the first woman in the Western World to become leader of her nation did not wear an African style turban whilst dancing and whooping round Greenham Common airbase, singing Joan Baez songs. She was a tough, no nonsense, plain speaking woman from middle England clad in twin set and pearls. She was the kind of woman who would, if given the chance, treat public spending in the common sense way she would manage a family’s finances, who would stand up to the menace of the Soviet Union and whack errant French euro-apparatchiks with her hand bag. To coin her own famous phrase, No! No! No! This did not fit the Leftist feminist agenda at all. This still so irritates the feminist Left that it either ignores Thatcher, or demonizes her as not really a woman, but somehow a proxy man, something which has been done to many woman of history who had dared to raise their voice in a man’s world. Listening to a discussion with Thatcher’s recent biographer Gillian Shepherd today, Shepherd pointed out that in the past year or so there had been something like 60 books on feminism published in the United Kingdom. Almost none of them made reference to Margaret Thatcher, and where they did so it was in uniformly negative terms. Yet it is hard to appreciate the sheer scale of her personal breakthrough at a time when it was still unusual for a married woman to have their own bank account, single women struggled to get mortgages, and the less than 3% of university lecturers were women.

Listening to another interview with Ann Widdicomb, the hapless interviewer put what he seemed to think was an important point: couldn’t Thatcher have done more to promote women in her government? Widdicombe treated the question with brutal disdain worthy of Thatcher. Thatcher was not in office to promote women, she snapped. She was in office to turn the country round and deal with immense problems. Heresy indeed!

She committed another crime in the eyes of the intellectual Left by going to war, and worse, winning a clear and decisive victory. This was reactionary, and contrary to the prescribed script of decline and defeatism. I often encountered this attitude abroad. I remember being lambasted by a young Swiss man who decided to vent his opprobrium about Britain’s inexplicable and wholly unreasonable behaviour given Argentina’s lawful and friendly taking back possession of the “Malvinas”. Given that this young gentleman hailed from a country which remained steadfastly neutral as the legions of Nazi Germany swept both West and East, I thought it was probably a bit pointless to discuss the merits of taking a stand against military regimes which stamp control on populations at the point of a gun. But to me and most people at the time the Falkland’s issue was and is entirely clear. A military Junta sought to impose its will by force on a free people under the British flag who did not want their rule. That required and justified a military response. It was the very epitome of the Augustinian concept of a just war. In many ways it made her; I think she would have lost the subsequent election without it, and Britain was blooming lucky to win, but it woke in Britain a new sense; a sense that we had not completely lost all touch with an illustrious past. That we were a nation, and that we were no longer a joke. That we had a woman who could change things, a leader. The Left disliked all of this.

Thatcher’s next crime was to threaten revolution. She threatened the Establishment. That Establishment comprised of both the failed and impotent grandees of the Right, and the dreary, defeatist, and pacifist intellectual consensus of the Left. Both parts of this consensus are in fact deeply snobbish, and Thatcher was their very antithesis. Not only a woman, but a woman from a background which was truly horrific, the petit bourgeois lower middle classes. And she embodied the views, tastes and attitudes of those classes. She was a walking, talking, Daily Mail brought to life. Thatcher was by birth, experience and necessity a meritocrat and on the side of the little man with a shop, or the worker who might want to own his own home. Neither the privileged elite of the Right and the Left (think “Tony” Benn) could bear this. It challenged the deep rooted paternalism which required the serfs to know their place, and stay in it.

Then there is the constant charge that she “wiped out” whole industries and blighted communities. Thatcher had the fortune or misfortune to arrive at what I would contend was the inevitable dénouement of the Industrial Revolution. From its heydays of the Victorian era, the dynamic of the British economy had stagnated, or remained in not just an industrial but even more importantly a psychological straight jacket. In terms of the actual viability of many heavy industries, whole sectors such as coal and steel were in many ways simply not viable in their then state. Anyone who had the misfortune to own a car manufactured by the “master craftsmen” of what was called British Leyland could attest that the quality of much of British manufacturing was shoddy to the point of embarrassment. I had to drive an Austin Allegro once, so I know.

This presented and continues to present an enormous structural problem for not just the economy but for whole communities which had been built around and depended on these strategic, but doomed industries. I can well see that there could be differences in the management of change, that perhaps more could have been saved here and there – but in the macro economic and social sense, large communities such as the mining towns and villages of Wales and South Yorkshire had become wholly welded to these industries which I would argue were, like the mammoths of old, about to come to terms with oblivion in a changing world. Taking the long historic view, World War II was still relatively recent memory, and had artificially preserved these industries for a few decades more. This could not last. But the times were changing. New industries, technologies and nations were beginning to emerge. It was, in other words, the beginning of the end for the mammoths. The only question was how long it would take for them to die out.

Britain is a highly tribal, class conscious nation, and its working class traditions and outlooks often tend towards stasis. There is an old saying about the difference between Britain and America and can be illustrated thus. A British miner and an American miner were having a chat over a beer.

The British miner says: “I am a miner. I am proud to be a miner and I have worked hard all my life. I want my son to be a miner like me.”

The American miner says: “I am a miner. I am proud to be a miner and I have worked hard all my life. I want my son to be an engineer/doctor/wall street trader” [add aspiration of your choice].

In short, whilst there were no doubt admirable values to be had in no doubt hard working, close knit communities, these generated communities also fostered an insular culture, highly tribal, resolutely and determinedly working class in their allegiances and attitudes, and unable to change. I suggest that these communities were the product of generations of social conditioning derived from social patterns set in the rather brutal furnace of the industrial revolution. In these communities there were not only valuable and laudable virtues of community and hard work, there were also less attractive attitudes such as a culture of belief in entitlement, narrow mindedness, and an entrenched belief that they were entitled for these industries to exist, and to be supported by the State if necessary.

I would argue that they were doomed. To take an example, I heard a woman from Liverpool berating Thatcher today for having “destroyed” her city and ruined her family. But you only have to walk around today with your eyes open to see the problem. Liverpool is a port. Its trade with the world brought in vast riches and shaped and created a city with magnificent buildings. But today the docks are empty. There are no trading ships. Trade has changed. Trade has gone elsewhere. Thatcher did not destroy Liverpool. In a sense, Liverpool’s reason for existence ceased.

Thatcher refused to accept a form of eastern European model in which one of the main functions of society was to glorify and maintain heavy industries which were inefficient, loss making and ultimately beyond salvage. She refused to follow that model, and the results were what they were.

With her twin set and pearls, clipped diction, lower Middle Class persona and frankly blunt and sometimes confrontational attitude, Thatcher was not just an instrument of doom, but the incarnation of all the class attitudes these communities could not understand and loathed. She was the perfect hate figure upon whom the anguish of industrial and social extinction could be focused.

That brings me to the biggest “crime”, the Miner’s Strike and taking on the unions. The Miner’s Strike was a hard time and its confrontations and divisions still echo. But I suggest that Thatcher’s approach and attitudes to the strike and indeed to Trade Union reform as a whole have to be understood in context. I remember the earlier Miner’s Strike in 1972 and the power cuts that went with it that had reduced the Heath Government to impotent irrelevance. I remember the IMF having to bail Britain out. I remember 1978-79 and the Winter of Discontent. I remember the rubbish piling up, fuel shortages, bodies going unburied as the gravediggers refused to turn up. I even stood on a picket line myself. I remember the 98 per cent tax rate.

I will not be far from the only commentator to make the point, but by 1979 there was the sense that Britain might fade into total collapse like some once gloriously beautiful woman, now wracked and impoverished by alcoholism and dying a quite unmarked death of an unknown tramp in a back alley, soaked in her own urine. That is what living in Britain felt like. I will add that there is another school of thought, which is that if things got much worse, Britain might have convulsed into armed revolution not of the Left, but a putsch by the Right, and a truly authoritative Fascist regime take power.

Thatcher’s remit, mandate, conviction and overwhelming achievement was to take on this challenge and reverse decline. It was a Britain in which the brutal and Luddite, Marxist Unions stood as an apparently all powerful, unchallengeable, entrenched and militant interest group which was a direct challenge to democratic rule. It was a Britain in which all sense of ambition and hope was being slowly throttled. Britain was slowly turning into Albania.

Politically, in stark terms it came to whether the country was to be run by the elected government of the day, or by the Unions. From the perspective of a political historian my view is that the Miners’ Strike had less to do with the economics of the coal industry, and more to do with a set piece clash between the mightiest and most militant Union of all, the NUM. I know the Yorkshire mining areas quite well, and have even had my dealings with some of the protagonists in that drama, and I have no doubt that the issue could with no great exaggeration be boiled down to this: who runs the country, Arthur Scargill, or the elected government? The clash was, to use the word Marxist theory loves so much, “inevitable.” Scargill looked for it, wanted it, and miscalculated. Thatcher foresaw the clash, and after backing down once, made preparations and stood firm. I suggest that however nasty some of the incidents of that clash were, any other result but defeat for the Union and the miners would have presented a clear and present threat to the democratic institutions of the country. As I say, I have had some involvements with the area, and I will only say Arthur Scargill is not a man you want to have running the country. Or, indeed, anything. Ever. Anywhere.

What was her achievement? Former MP and noted columnist Matthew Parris was a junior member of staff in her private office and put the matter this way. He said that Thatcher took on the dominant “intellectual” doctrine of the day, which was rooted in a belief in the long term decline of Britain, and on the Marxist premise that this was some inevitable historical process. Margaret Thatcher, he said, took the view that one person, with clear and moral vision and purpose could take on the decline of Britain head on and that we could take our destiny back into our own hands. That one person could change things. In doing so she again preached a heresy for which the left of centre intellectual establishment has never forgiven her.

She may have gone a bit barmy in the end. She probably lost perspective. I met her once, at a dinner in Manchester in 1993 which was part of her tour promoting the first part of her memoir, “The Downing Street Years”. All sorts of people attended; the left leaning firebrand barrister of choice Michael Mansfield QC was on the next table. Her after dinner speech was something like 40 minutes long, delivered without notes. It was hugely impressive, clear, forthright, and combative and touched with humour. The standing ovation was extraordinary, with even Mansfield on his feet.

Readers may be amused to know that your author is not and has never been a card carrying Conservative. In fact, I was a founder member of that most muddled headed mix which was called the “Social Democratic Party”. With that in that context I heard a very balanced appreciation of Margaret Thatcher from David Owen, by far the most sensible of the “Gang of Four”. He found her judgment of many social issues and the consequences on social policies often flawed, but as to the necessity to fight two wars, one external against military aggression and one internal against Union aggression, he was generous and positive in his praise.

I think Margaret Thatcher, for all the faults she may have had, had a courage, directness and genuine sense of conviction which I simply fail to identify in politicians of today. She had more balls than Blair, Brown, Cameron, Clegg and Miliband put together. If she was tough, maybe she had to be. If she was ruthless, maybe she had to be. She was of her time. She changed Britain’s perception of itself. And for that she will be both loved and hated, probably in equal measure.

© Sigillum

lAMfe-NhemI

About these ads

31 responses to “The Hatred of Maggie

  1. Richard Ringwood.

    Well good point, despite all the silly female claptrap experts on the TV today, many not born, claiming thatcher was a feminist this was not true, I doubt she would have ever placed someone in a job simply because they were female like the senario today.I remember watching the TV after the brighton Bomb not many people being able to take in what happened. She appeared from the ruin, dusted down and said back to business, I think the old provo’s got a big shock I wonder what thier faces looked like that day, nothing ever seen like it in the history of the conflict. That was true character of the woman, the one they called the “Battle Maiden!

  2. Penelope Shrimpton

    Of course there is one good point that seperates Thatcher from girl power and feminism, irrespect of her politics, it comes down to this, firstly she could run a government and had a proven track record of doing so, regarding the cries of I want the job because I am a woman, she was in a different league, THATS SIMPLY THE END OF THE STORY.!

  3. Nick diPerna

    She destroyed union representation for blue-collar workers yet she conspicuously left the white-collar unions alone. Now factories and warehouses are more akin to a Gulag, and public servants have there own separate minimum wage guarantees and gold-plated pension schemes, funded by the former. Ironically, her current detractors are the ones who mostly benefited from her policies.

    She transformed an industrial nation into a service sector economy – a feminising of society – creating jobs chiefly suitable for women and leaving many working-class men marginalised to this day. Trouble is, now we don’t produce enough to match our imports.

    No good blaming working-class men for their plight – for example, just before he retired, my father who was a paint sprayer, started earning £12 per hour. He was convinced that he was somewhere in the top 1% of UK earners especially now that he had bought his council house. I’m 43 years old and still can’t grasp the concept of a ‘career’. We’ve been told all our lives not to change and that there is nothing wrong with being a shelf stacker. I had no career advice at school or any talk of higher education. But at the end of the day, many of us just don’t want to become a petit bourgeois robot and join an establishment that despises us. Is this any different to middle class people not wanting to do jobs ‘beneath them’ to pay for their education and get themselves established? Or buy a house in a run-down area to get on the property ladder? No, they want it all right away and society bends over backwards to give it to them at everyone else’s expense.

    As I said in a previous post, you could argue that she was the ultimate feminist, not that feminists would acknowledge her as such. But there is some truth in the ‘special hatred’ reserved for gays, women and ethnic groups on the right-wing of politics.

  4. What you state is not factually correct, firstly it was Ton Blair who caused the problem with the white collar workers, as we saw from the FOI last week, the white collar workers now just award themselves thier own pay rises without even consulting government, The statist judges and lawyers now run the country, until their power base is removed there is little hope, the Blair government started much of this phenonomena, they built the conveyor belts of legislation. The Police and State departments are out of control, not even government can’t control them, the police state must be dismantled, we must stop letting a handful of people run the country in direct contradiction to democratic government. Can’t you see who is running the country, look at the unions and civil service, no one can do anything with this minority they are taking the piss, especially these Judges.

  5. I see again from the leaks this week, yet again another woodentop of the Norfolk Police suing for an alleged £100,000, we’re sick to death of this f-ing culture, 2nd home peelers at every bodies expense, no doubt the Battle maiden is to blame for that as well!

  6. An excellent article and a pleasure to read.

  7. “I’m 43 years old and still can’t grasp the concept of a ‘career’. We’ve
    been told all our lives not to change and that there is nothing wrong with being a shelf stacker. I had no career advice at school or any talk of higher education.”
    Nor did the young Chaim Weintrop, so at age 14 he walked from London’s East End down to Southampton, blagged his way onto a ship sailing for N.Y. by telling them he was 17 and an electrician, jumped ship when it got to N.Y., got all manner of jobs all over the US before becoming Bud Flanagan.
    You make your own luck in this world.

  8. It’s sometimes odd how the study of history can bring understanding and meaning to the future, historically the name Hilda or Hilder was old Germanic, in German the name meant “Battle Woman” the name was eventually migrated to England and was used with reference in the 7th century,to various English woman, Margret Hilda Thatcher took this as the second element of her name being old english import, old german in source, of course many people question names, some claim names can determine a persons future or character, she lived it well, she earned the title of “Battle Maiden” she did indeed!

  9. I must say in those day’s I did not worry about career advice, back then my
    family connections had businesses so I never worried about finding work, I
    had lots of friends then, so these things were not a problem. I don’t think
    I change my name to Bud, that’s a No. No.

  10. It’s funny Hugo, you should bring up the subject of careers, I switched on the TV tonight BBC, just missed the news, about to turn it off when suddenly it was anounced there now follows a “Party Political Broadcast On Behalf Of The labour Party” Ed as you would expect, suddenly telling us it was time to do something about immigration. out of control, Blardy, Blardy, Blarr, He’s promised he’s actually going to stop employment agencies refusing to employ english people, can you beleive it, the English discrimation by employment agencies is comming to an end under Ed, no longer are they going to say sorry no jobs for the English. I don’t know where law’s of discrimination have dissappared to, were there any for the native English anyway, still Ed has promised, on TV to boot, he’s going to do something for the English at long last, so next time you contact that employment agency or recruitment agency, when they ask are you English, and you say yes, they reply sorry no jobs for the English, Just say Ed is going to change that if he get’s elected, he said so on the BBC, let’s not hold our breath.

  11. At least a post on this site, on Mrs T, with which I can agree.

    Yes Margaret Thatcher did not invent the Dock Labour Scheme (1940s onwards) which helped destroy Liverpool (although the city was in relative decline even before the First World War).

    On the American miner – well their sons might be advised to be coal miners or farmers in future, as the service economy is going to fall apart (but I get your point).

    On “white collar restrictive practices” – the government did make a big attack on a major area of those and I think it was a MISTAKE.

    The area they hit was “The City” – under the guidence of university economics (the “perfect competition” model of neoclassical economics). Hitting such “restrictive practices” as the distinction between brokers and jobbers (and so on).

    However, The City was made up of volunary associations and companies (such as the one that had run the Stock Exchange since 1801) – there was no law preventing the establisment of rival exchanges (and there had been some) or dealing “off exchange”.

    So (and here Paul is being, as far as the “libertarian left”would be concerned, even more of a “running dog for entrenched capitalist interests” than Mrs T. ever was) the government should have stayed out of The City – left it alone.

    On the law – there was the end to the ban on advertising (giving us all their adverstisments on radio and television – “if the accident was not your fault you can ….” NO YOU SHOULD NOT – not unless the accident really was the FAULT of the employer, do not see your bad luck as a pay-day because a lawyer tells you so)., still either one believes in free competition or one does not – so I have to accept the adverts.

    But, of course, I would like anyone to be able to appear in court – although (yes) if you went in with someone who had not been trained in the law you would be likely to lose (but not always – after all Mr Lincoln had no formal legal training, there was just no bar on employing a railhand as your lawyer in most American States in the early 19th century).

    I wish Mrs T. had hit the Wets at the start. James Prior and the rest.

    No accepting of the outgoing Labour government’s spending plans in 1979 – so a less bad reaction to the world slump (Keynesians will not undertand that the increase in government spending in 1979 made things worse, yes worse, than they would otherwise would have been).

    And labour market reform at once – taking back the GOVERNMENT GRANTED powers the unions had.

    If a grip had been got on government spending had been gained at once and if there had been labour market reform at once (real labour market reform) then we would not have seen the massive increase in UNEMPLOMENT that occured.

    Although by1983 things had stopped getting worse.

    And Mr Foot’s antics (including the “longest suicide note in history” – the Labour party Marxist manifesto of 1983) helped as much as the Falklands war of 1982, to win that 1983 election.

  12. Mr Harry Price

    I admitt my political history is vague from this period, but I do have a good memory and speak with authority from that point, of course paul during the period you describe things were far from good for many people, I remember 76 to 83, when even many of my firends were unable to find work, despite having qualifications, there were difficulties with housing some people waiting over a decade to get a flat if living at home with their parents. Of course for many this was a bad period, I remember Norman Tebitt with the get on your bike campaign, unemployment was indeed very high for many during this period, but in truth things have a got a lot worse now for the English at least. Of course, as I said, the statists fill in one hole and leave a bigger one bhind them, take the Norfolk NSH as an example, no sooner do they sort the ambulance problem out, we have another crisis, operations cancelled due to pressures they claim, if that not bad enough, they now have a “Norovirus” sweeping through 11 wards, this situation has again left ambulances queuing outside the hospital again, back to square 1. we start off with one problem and end up with three. of course with the errection of a tent that cost £70,000 things are just to much to bear.

  13. Some good, points, I see government are still interfering with th city, I saw the article in money matters yesterday, councils and waterboards are now going to sell information to morgage brokers, people who have not payed their rates or water bill are going to be denied morgages.DVLA are already doing this.

  14. Mr Harry price

    Yes, correct, I have read a lot on the subject this week, the scheme was rolled out this week, has started in Yorkshire on Monday,this is planned to be rolled out over the UK, with councils reportedly being able to supply details to other agencies, although in Norfolk the Tory Council is already doing this. Payment records under scheme are now going to e passed to loan companies and morgage brokers, up to 4 million people will see thier loan or morgage applications hit as a result, there was another article posted in Money Mail this week confirming the yorkshire scheme had already been rolled out the DVLA have been doing this for some time, who pass information to other agencies, who in turn, pass it on, and so on, and so, on.

  15. Norman T. said that his father. in the 1930s, got on his bike and looked for work – which was the truth.

    I have already covered the increase in (already high) unemployment – government spending should not have been increased (not “cut” INCREASED) in 1979. And if that meant a return to the “Winter of Discontent” (by tearing up the pay deals the Labour government had made with government workers) so be it.

    And labour market reform (getting rid of GOVERNMENT GRANTED unon power) should have been done at once.

    As it was years were wasted – while that toad James Prior sat in the post.

    As for other matters – I will not shy away from stating my opinion.

    The “race relations industry” should have been abolished – all the Acts going back to 1965 repealed.

    And “Comrade Bob” should not have been allowed to take over a country and slaughter vast numbers of people (most of whom were black).

    The “internal settlement” should have been formally recognised.

  16. Yes you’re right about what tebitt said it is, true, but in saying that most people did ride bikes in those day’s and they all had to do that sort of thing anyway. of prior I alaway’s thought oo as being a bit slow on doing anything, he had a brother surgeon who I met several times, I think they both very wealthly I don’t think they worried to much much to be honest.

  17. Karl makes a good point about “Hilda” – I did not know that.

    As for Norman T. – in London (where he was an M.P.) a bike makes perfect sense – although (I agree) it is no good for people who live many miles away from available jobs (isolated communities in the North of England were things that N.T. knew nothing about).

    Hardly a perfect man – after all he belived the left’s lies about FCS (and destroyed it). But better than his foes.

    As for his wealth – he earned it.

    And there is always a danger in pointing to the wealth of others – one may be given it AND their problems also.

    In N.T. case the bomb that blow his guts out (and left him alive – but in pain for the rest of his days) – and crippled his wife from the neck down.

  18. Karl makes a good point about “Hilda” – I did not know that.

    As for Norman T. – a bike still makes sense in London (where he was an M.P.) but, I agree, it makes no sense in communites in the North of England many miles from work.

    Hardly a perfect man – after all he believed the leftist lies about FCS (and abolished his own allies – getting rid of the de facto bodyguard of Mrs T). However, better than his foes.

    As for his wealth – what wealth he has he has earned.

    And it is dangerious to point at the good fortune of others – as one may be given it (along with their BAD fortune).

    In N.T.s case – being blown up and living in pain (year after year) watching your wife (crippled from the neck down in the same bomb blast).;

    We all have our troubles.

  19. Yes I think you’re right, I see they are all having a party in London, and many other places in the UK, I can’t understand why, looks like all these, sudents who have read some misinformation, of course I can’t help noting the majority wern’t even born. I saw the latest creation of academic politicains from the UEA today, they might all be wishing her back I think.

  20. In anyevent, NT was not the only person injured by the IRA, fisrtly many people were killed without hardly a mention, and then there was all the victims robbed of the lives by the demented, british justice system, no one will ever realy know how many went to prison or had their lives ruined under the banner of the aniti- terror legislation and our corrupted police and justice system. I was in London 1992, in the CB office, NT got the higest comensation awards ever made by the CICB for idential injuries per say. Secondly, my grandfather was on the ground every day in Ireland, he was shot by a sniper, witnessed horror, no doubt suffered life long psychologial injuries as they probabaly all did, like PTS, they never got a penny, and had to go and fight two more wars as well, the conservatives make a fuss about the IRA inflictions, they are not the only victims, I now for sure many more innocent people suffered far greater injustice, at least TB’s wife can afford care, many could not, this is indeed a fact.

  21. Of course paul we have heard a lot this week, about Tory victims of the conflict, we hear nothing of the grave yards full of both Catholic and Protestants, their lives stolen from them, incidentally some who died the most horrorific deaths imaginable, the “Butchers” for instance, hope they never get to see the photographs, someone may ask the Tories what all the fuss is about.

  22. Julie near Chicago

    I would like to thank Miss Raccoon ;) for a most interesting and enjoyable positive (for a change recounting of Mrs. Thatcher and her accomplishments. Well done!

    PS. One correction to a probable typo: “straitjacket,” not “straight jacket.” “Strait” = narrow, as in “Straits of Gibralter,” or “dire straits.”

  23. Julie near Chicago

    Well, s/b “(for a change),” of course. :-(

  24. Yea, well now doubt americans did not live in England or Ireland during
    her time in power, I saw some of her accomplishments, two good friends
    committing sucide, you should look at the accomplishments they don’t
    show you. Anyway there’s only one flag over this counrty that’s the
    english one. What do I care about the opinons of foreigners anyway,there
    were some good ones in my mail today, from English haters, simply why
    don’t they F off back to their own countries.

  25. Yes, you’re right Mr Stibbons, I have just been rewinding my memory tapes back to the 70’s. it was a good old democracy indeed, I remember the Troops Out Group in Norfolk at the time and getting dragged off by some retarded police goon for simply wearing a troops out if NI badge, that’s what they called a democracy a night in the cells for expressing an opinion they don’t like, and a fine by some ping pong shit magistrate. Of course during thatchers reign there was corruption and nepotisim in business everywhere you went, little in the way of civil rights or application to the law , people who did not live in England at the time could never ever fully understand what it was like. The policies on Northern ireland were a complete failure, resorting to even worse levels of crime then that of the alleged terrorists, I have seen some of the statements made to the DOIFA in relation to the period, they will never see the light of day, that’s for sure. I think one can conclude it was indeed a police state not a democracy by any discription.

  26. Yes Karl – we do indeed all have a our troubles.

    As for the IRA – my Irish Catholic Gradfather (James Power – although he was born in London) talked about those scum sometimes, I will not repeat what he said about them. After all Sean Gabb had a fit about what I said about his Communist pal Kevin Carson – the sort of “bloodthirsty” things my grandfather said about the IRA might well give Sean a stroke.

    By the way my grandfather served in both World Wars (he was that generation) – and (unlike my father Harry Marks) always had a smile. I am told (although I never viewed it myself) that he even smiled as he killed – which must have been slightly unnerving.

    I have never managed the Irish “smile and hit” thing – when I am angry with someone it is obvious (which is a weakness in me).

  27. Yes, it’s funny that generation, would make 10 of 1 now, I remember my
    grandfather. still riding at 70, few people could handle a horse like him
    or my great grandfather. he was destined for the race course when he
    finished the army but got married and went in RAF instead.

  28. Yes.

    When I came back to Kettering to look after my parents (I did a grand job – they are both dead) I found that my father (one lung and so on – whom the doctors said should already be dead) would do things like hang out of the window to clean things. He should have died in battle against the Reds – instead he died upstairs – I messed up the CPR. Knowing my past record I will (most likely) mess up the comming battle also – and Comrade Kevin Carson will take my scalp (bald as it is) instead of me taking his. But one can but try.

    My mother?

    They cut a lump of cancer from her belly the size of a football and her comment?

    “They gave me a nice cup of tea Paul – in a real china cup”.

    Then mother went looking in “The Lady” for another cleaning job. She died composing a poem about an owl that (supposedly) hooted her name.

    The former generation were indeed a tough bunch. I think of them and I am ashamed of my weakness and uselessness.

  29. In the case of kevin Carson, you could run him through before he scalp, problem solved.

  30. Karl you have never seen me trying to use a sword – it is not an attractive site.

    If he challenges me to a duel I will pick pistols. I will still. most likely, lose – but at least I will not insult an ancient weapon (the sword) by my pathetic efforts to use it.

  31. Try the pistols then, think positive, see carson bit the dust before you pull
    the trigger, remember David and Golieth! don’t give up your scalp without
    a fight.