I’m very sad that Margaret Thatcher died. Whatever you think of her politics, she offered a very positive contrast with all of these Dianas and Kates whose greatest achievement is marrying somebody people consider important. Thatcher didn’t invest her energies into fostering idiotic scandals around her persona, attracting paparazzi, choosing expensive outfits, or distracting the public with their soap-operish drama.
If you dislike Thatcher for being Conservative, then remember that she was at least very honest about that. In the meanwhile, all these fake scandals of Kates, Fergies and Dianas are serving the purpose of distracting people from what is going on politically and zombifying them with stupid scandals that are created out of nothing (Kate’s recent pregnancy-related scandal made me positively despise her. I understand that being scandalous is what she gets paid to do but still, how nasty.)
Thatcher showed the world that British women are not all trivial, silly, and interested in nothing but their looks. She achieved things, made things work. We can disagree with those things but the value of a woman in a fiercely sexist society traveling the road of achievement and not the road of playing into the worst stereotypes about women is very high.
Clarissa's Blog 
She’s in the British monarchy tradition, which is well-established. Elizabeth 1, Queen Victoria, etc. That’s the form. Her content wasn’t very good.
LikeLike
So she was born to inherit the Prime Ministry??
LikeLike
er…no, and that is not a logical conclusion based on what I said.
LikeLike
Just consider why the British people still bemoan Diana and hate Thatcher. Both are a symbol of Neoliberalism but one is a powerful aggressive woman while another one is a trivial, whiny bit of fluff.
Yes, I know that Diana worshippers will now descend upon me rabidly.
LikeLike
People in Australia hate our prime minister. It would be okay if she were a man in politics or a woman of the right (an honorary man who knew her place). But because she resists pre-established roles she is particularly hated.
LikeLike
I think she rocks, actually. I don’t know that much about her, of course, but what I do know is impressive.
LikeLike
She really is impressive, and she embodies the Celtic aspect of Australian culture in a very good way. She brings out a lot of hatred in people who have accepted that women should not be in positions of power. As you might suspect, leftists and feminists also like to hate her.
LikeLike
What do the feminists say about her??
LikeLike
I just notice a general trend that people who have deep levels of political correctness in their souls believe our PM doesn’t nurture and tend to the flock in a proper womanly and considerate manner. There’s a prevalent idea that unlike a normal politician who would simply play politics, she is bound to attend to our heartfelt needs as gentle souls who need attention. She has betrayed our trust by acting like a politician when she should be like our mother. After all, we voted her in with a great deal of sincerity in our hearts, which makes it worse than if we’d simply gone to the polls in a normal manner.
LikeLike
Ah, I get this. Wanting to be mothered by the country’s leader is very recognizable. “If she can’t be our mother, then what use is she?” An incapacity to see a woman in any role but the mothering one is very wide-spread.
LikeLike
Yes, and in particular on the part of the left, who think only in binary terms and demand that nurturing and nourishment ought to be supplied as the opposite of authoritarian “evil”. What they don’t see is that politics is a game of compromise. Many leftists will feel poorly nurtured and will vote in someone who will whip them and give them hell, because they are so angry mummy wasn’t there for them.
LikeLike
Yes, yes, yes. It’s like that “matriarchal” fantasy I blogged about recently. The entire thing is predicated on women not doing anything but smothering everybody in sight with their care or nurturing.
I’ve participated in such discussions where some starry-eyed “feminist” always goes, “But wouldn’t it be wonderful if the traditionally female qualities of nurturing and caring were more valued in society?” No, idiot, because you and I are already seen as walking stress-relief vehicles.
LikeLike
Well that would be the practical effect — the stress of complete submission. But actually these “feminists” are wonderful little emotional extortionists themselves.
LikeLike
It’s great and everything that she was a successful, strong-willed woman, but it’s not really of much comfort to the people who had to put up with her policies.
LikeLike
Yet the endless shenanigans of all the Kates that allow such policies to be snuck past people are celebrated and worshipped. Remember the mass hysteria over Diana’s death? The political ramifications of all her scandal-mongering were never even discussed.
Thatcher had convictions and pursued them. She had other goals than losing weight and shopping.
LikeLike
I disagreed with some of her policies but she was a giant compared with every PM (hell every British politician) since who resemble thin, chirping little insects (at best)
IME most Brits I’ve met hated her with the kind of searing passion that made think she must be right about more than I realized.
LikeLike
I think so, too. The country has not been fortunate in its PMs since Thatcher. None of them commands respect in foreign countries.
The hatred of Thatcher reminds me of my compatriots’ hatred of Gorbachov.
LikeLike
And of course, the British could not have hated Thatcher’s policies all that much if they went and elected Cameron.
LikeLike
“None of them commands respect in foreign countries”
I can’t imagine them commanding respect from a cocker spaniel, much less foreign countries. My personal schadenfreude favorite was the sublimely awkward William Hague (though he was never PM)
“The hatred of Thatcher reminds me of my compatriots’ hatred of Gorbachov”
A nce connection (I should have but didn’t make) Is he more or less hated in the Ukraine than in Russia?
LikeLike
Funny about the spaniel. 🙂
I can’t say who hates him most. The Russians literally foam at the mouth when he is mentioned. But Ukrainians do, too. The Russians also have a weirdly intense hatred for his long-dead wife. There is a story about a pair of boots she wore in 1987 that still makes people very angry.
LikeLike
Cameron was never elected. 😛 He had to form a coalition with a rival political party to get into power.
LikeLike
Yes, but he got there after many people voted for him. And as far as I hear, he rules the coalition while Clegg never lived up to expectations. I only read Spanish papers, though, so I might be wrong.
LikeLike
Who cares about Diana? And in the case of Thatcher, I don’t like her patriarchical politics but she was not as bad as Chavez.
LikeLike
Even my 20-year-old students believe Diana was one of the most important people of the XXth century!! It must be her epic struggle with an extra pound of weight that makes her so crucial to the history of humanity.
LikeLike
And at least, she was not anti-abortion and she was in favor of homosexual depenalization.
LikeLike
Exactly.
LikeLike
Femme du monde ou bien putain
Qui bien souvent êtes les mêmes
Femme normale, star ou boudin,
Femelles en tout genre je vous aime
Même à la dernière des connes,
Je veux dédier ces quelques vers
Issus de mon dégoût des hommes
Et de leur morale guerrière
Car aucune femme sur la planète
N´ s´ra jamais plus con que son frère
Ni plus fière, ni plus malhonnête
A part peut-être Madame Thatcher
Femme je t´aime parce que
Lorsque le sport devient la guerre
Y a pas de gonzesse ou si peu
Dans les hordes de supporters
Ces fanatiques, fous-furieux
Abreuvés de haines et de bières
Déifiant les crétins en bleu,
Insultant les salauds en vert
Y a pas de gonzesse hooligan,
Imbécile et meurtrière
Y´en a pas même en grande Bretagne
A part bien sûr Madame Thatcher
Femme je t´aime parce que
Une bagnole entre les pognes
Tu n´ deviens pas aussi con que
Ces pauvres tarés qui se cognent
Pour un phare un peu amoché
Ou pour un doigt tendu bien haut
Y´en a qui vont jusqu´à flinguer
Pour sauver leur autoradio
Le bras d´honneur de ces cons-là
Aucune femme n´est assez vulgaire
Pour l´employer à tour de bras
A part peut être Madame Thatcher
Femme je t´aime parce que
Tu vas pas mourir à la guerre
Parc´ que la vue d´une arme à feu
Fait pas frissonner tes ovaires
Parc´ que dans les rangs des chasseurs
Qui dégomment la tourterelle
Et occasionnellement les Beurs,
J´ai jamais vu une femelle
Pas une femme n´est assez minable
Pour astiquer un revolver
Et se sentir invulnérable
A part bien sûr Madame Thatcher
C´est pas d´un cerveau féminin
Qu´est sortie la bombe atomique
Et pas une femme n´a sur les mains
Le sang des indiens d´Amérique
Palestiniens et arméniens
Témoignent du fond de leurs tombeaux
Qu´un génocide c´est masculin
Comme un SS, un torero
Dans cette putain d´humanité
Les assassins sont tous des frères
Pas une femme pour rivaliser
A part peut être Madame Thatcher
Femme je t´aime surtout enfin
Pour ta faiblesse et pour tes yeux
Quand la force de l´homme ne tient
Que dans son flingue ou dans sa queue
Et quand viendra l´heure dernière,
L´enfer s´ra peuplé de crétins
Jouant au foot ou à la guerre,
A celui qui pisse le plus loin
Moi je me changerai en chien si je peux rester sur la Terre
Et comme réverbère quotidien
Je m´offrirai Madame Thatcher
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Maggie
LikeLike
Maggie rocked. It’s a shame that politicians today don’t have the balls she had. She wasn’t right about everything, of course, but she dragged the UK kicking and screaming out of the total mess it was in and put it on a sounder footing.
Politicians now are corrupt, weak scumbags in bed with their financial masters.
Diana served a purpose as does Kate. You may not like it, or approve of them but both were/are greatly appreciated by most Brits. They help(ed) bring the nation together, and with the Queen are (were) symbols of British nationhood as part of the monarchy. Anyone who is anti monarchy will disapprove but that’s their problem.
LikeLike
“They help(ed) bring the nation together, and with the Queen are (were) symbols of British nationhood as part of the monarchy.”
– I dislike mechanisms used to form national identities profoundly. Yes, people now feel they all have something in common because they all have opinions on Kate’s most recent outfit. I’m sure they are finding some kind of comfort in that feeling. But it’s not the kind of comfort I can respect.
“Politicians now are corrupt, weak scumbags in bed with their financial masters.”
– Very true. But it isn’t much different anywhere else I’m aware of.
LikeLike
I’m not sure about the last paragraph, but this is interesting.
http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/the-legacy-of-margaret-thatcher/
LikeLike
But she was right on about the Euro: http://www.businessinsider.com/margaret-thatcher-on-the-euro-2013-4
LikeLike
The linked post makes her sound absolutely amazing:
“She relaxed the conditions for searches and seizure by the police. She increased the numbers and powers of the police. She weakened trial by jury. . . She began the first steps towards total criminalisation of gun possession.
She did not cut government spending. Instead, she allowed the conversion of local government and the lower administration into a system of sinecures for the Enemy Class. She allowed political correctness to take hold in local government. When she did oppose this, it involved giving central government powers of supervision and control useful to a future politically correct government.
She vastly expended state powers of supervision and control over parenting, and immensely expanded the numbers and powers of social workers.
She made the environmental nonsense politically fashionable. She was the first senior British politician to start wittering about climate change and ozone holes. She doubtless thought she was further stuffing the coal miners. . . She hardly cut taxes. She ruthlessly pushed the speed of European integration.”
Was she really this wonderful? And why didn’t her best buddy Reagan support any of this? The two are supposed to be alike but Reagan championed the exact opposite on every single point.
LikeLike
Clarissa, I am curious, what do you mean by wonderful though? I would not call relaxing the conditions for search and seizure by the police wonderful, or necessarilly increasing police powers, or weakening trial by jury. Or criminalizing all gun ownership.
She did cut taxes, but at first, she tried a tax policy that lowered a tax rate that nobody paid in the first place, and she increased the VAT tax, which hurt the U.K. economy initially. Then later on, she pushed a large tax cut (Labour had taken the top tax rate to 90% in the 70s).
I also do not think European integration was a good idea. Tying all those nations together economically under one currency was bound to have problems, which Thatcher pointed out in the early 1990s. She purposely kept the U.K. out of the Euro for this reason.
Regarding her and Reagan, she and Reagan were not identical. What united them was two things:
1) Hardline against communism
2) Belief in free-market capitalism
On other things though, there were differences.
Even though I don’t agree with everything Thatcher did, one thing she did do was to make Britain realize that it wasn’t stagnating because it was just the leftover remnants of a once great empire (as many thought at the time), it was because of bad policy. Labour party at the time was very much in favor of socialism (originally Labour had wanted the U.K. to adopt the same economic system as the Soviet Union had, but the British people would only go so far).
Thatcher’s policies were all extremely controversial at the time however as this was at the time when it wasn’t “obvious” to people in the way that it is today that socialism doesn’t work and that the Soviet Union was so evil (and even today, it still isn’t obvious to some!). Thatcher brought back the virtues of free-enterprise to the U.K.
LikeLike
“Clarissa, I am curious, what do you mean by wonderful though? I would not call relaxing the conditions for search and seizure by the police wonderful, or necessarilly increasing police powers, or weakening trial by jury. Or criminalizing all gun ownership.”
– I would. What lies behind the hyped up rhetoric of this weird blogger is the lower crime rates. I’m all for lower crime rates.
LikeLike
It may lead to lower crime rates, but at the expense of freedom. What good are lower crime rates if you have ot infringe on people’s rights completely in the process? That was the whole huge debate with regards to President Bush and his treatment of terrorists even. His administration wanted to treat them militarily, whereas the argument from the Democratic party was that they should be given the same protections as a citizen, i.e. right to remain silent, trial by jury, etc…usually it’s the conservative Republicans who are all about increasing police powers and so forth.
You can always increase security at the expense of freedom if you let the police question you as they please, come into a person’s home and search it as they please, and so forth. Right now a big debate is over whether law enforcement should be allowed the use of drones for spying purposes, as it is believed that this will lead to abuse. On guns, I would argue that people have a right to protect themselves, just as people have a right to their bodies.
Where do you see the line set? Where do you draw the line between “safer” but more authoritarian state as opposed to a more free, but in some ways less-safe state?
LikeLike
You know that I hate statements that use the word “freedom” without specifying freedom from what or to do what. The word has no meaning otherwise.
LikeLike
Again, I can’t answer your question until you specify free to do what exactly?
LikeLike
By freedom, I mean where the government or an individual can come and take away your ability to live your life however you please. In order for the government to do that, you have to first break laws that thus allow them to be able to do this. But if those who enforce the law, law enforcement, suspect you of having broken the law, they cannot just lock you up, they have to first acquire enough evidence to arrest you, and so forth.
To protect you in the event you are suspect or accused of a crime, or if someone decides to attack you, you have various rights which are protected, such as the right to remain silent, right to a jury trial, right to protect oneself and keep arms, right against unreasonable search and seizure, right to privacy, right to one’s body, etc…the protection of these rights keeps the government from taking away your freedom. Without any of them, the government could most definitely crack down a lot more on crime, but it would involve throwing a whole lot of innocent people into prison as well.
LikeLike
“the protection of these rights keeps the government from taking away your freedom”
– As I already explained, I’ve always had a very good relationship with my father, so these “the Big Daddy wants to give you a curfew and take away your toys” scenarios have no impact on me.
LikeLike
“Clarissa, I am curious, what do you mean by wonderful though? I would not call relaxing the conditions for search and seizure by the police wonderful, or necessarilly increasing police powers, or weakening trial by jury. Or criminalizing all gun ownership.””
All of this is not for “reducing crime” purpose.
LikeLike
“All of this is not for “reducing crime” purpose.”
– Yes, it’s all a big conspiracy theory. Ooooh, scary!
LikeLike
This is not a conspiration theory. A police state is not there to protect against crimes. This is not what police state is about.
LikeLike
If you want to know what a police state really looks like, there are many places across the world you can visit. I assure you, though, that the UK is SO not one of them.
LikeLike
If you want to know what a police state really looks like, there are many places across the world you can visit. I assure you, though, that the UK is SO not one of them.
LikeLike
UK is not a big police state, but the police state was bigger under Thatcher than before. (but the anti-Labors were worst after that, so…)
LikeLike
I’m not sure I understand the value of contrasting Margaret Thatcher with Diana, Kate, etc. The tedious obsession of the media and public with shallow aspects of the latter (appearance, who they married etc) seems to me pretty disconnected to the discussion of Thatcher’s career and political legacy. [Like discussing Justin Bieber in the same frame of reference as, say, Ronald Reagan or Hillary Clinton.]
Thatcher was Prime Minister when I was growing up. I was too young to appreciate politics at the time, but I can see now the value of taking completely for granted the constant image of a strong woman in the most powerful position in the country. I personally disagree with many of her policies but can easily admire her intelligence, honesty and drive. At least she was not insipid, like so many politicians these days!
LikeLike
“I’m not sure I understand the value of contrasting Margaret Thatcher with Diana, Kate, etc.”
– They are the only prominent female public figures in the UK who get discussed day and night. I asked if there was anybody else but nobody could find any other female role models.
“I can see now the value of taking completely for granted the constant image of a strong woman in the most powerful position in the country.”
– This is exactly what I’m saying. And who is THE British woman everybody discusses today?
“[Like discussing Justin Bieber in the same frame of reference as, say, Ronald Reagan or Hillary Clinton.]”
– If there was no other discussion of any male figure than Bieber, then we’d definitely need to talk about him.
LikeLike
Fair enough, I suppose. But within Britain other women certainly are discussed [there are a number of prominent female politicians or former politicians (such as Anne Widdecombe, Mo Mowlam), influential talking heads (eg Shami Chakrabarti), scientists (eg Susan Greenfield) and strong female historical figures (Elizabeth I, Victoria, as mentioned by musteryou above). Not to mention the current Queen of course.]
There certainly should be more female role models, and it is sad that these other women are not as well known outside the UK as the Dianas and Kates, and that we haven’t had a female PM since Thatcher. But some of the fame and influence of Diana, Kate seems to be due to the strange obsession of the US with British royalty, which inflates the importance of these royal “celebrities”.
LikeLike
I personally think that comparing Thatcher to most royals trivializes her and her accomplishments. The only British royal I’d think to compare her to would be ER2 (as acting head of state). And she is definitely no slouch, not necessarily an idea or paragon but she’s done a mostly pretty good job as monarch.
Otherwise I’m careful to only compare her to other politicians, and again, she leaves almost every other post WWII british politician in the dust. I disagreed with some of her policies but would never think to party or rejoice at her death like the scummy freakazoids in the news.
The closest to a successor I think might be Nigel Farage who seems to be only politician in the UK who thinks a role of government is to look after the interests of the citizenry (rather than incompetent financial insitutions or rabidly stupid ideas of multiculturlism and/or ‘human rights’. I sometimes wonder why he’s still alive…
LikeLike
“I personally think that comparing Thatcher to most royals trivializes her and her accomplishments.”
– I’m not comparing her to royals. I’m comparing her to the only British women the whole world knows by name right now. It is hardly my fault that these women happen to be a few stupid bits of fluff married to the royals.
” I disagreed with some of her policies but would never think to party or rejoice at her death like the scummy freakazoids in the news.”
– Exactly. I’m appalled at the reaction this is producing in many people.
LikeLike
“I’m appalled at the reaction this is producing in many people.”
This is a counter-reaction against the post-death sanctification of a misogynistic corpo-prostitute cunt. Many Thatcherites did the same thing (and they were rightly so! ) about Chavez.
LikeLike
Why is she suddenly misogynistic?
LikeLike
The facts that she was pro-choice and that she was less sluttyer than Diana doesn’t make her a non-misogynist.
Oh, and you made the same thing, dancing in the grave of Chavez (rightly so!) in your own blog.
LikeLike
“The facts that she was pro-choice and that she was less sluttyer than Diana doesn’t make her a non-misogynist.”
– They don’t make her a misogynist either. Do you have any reason to think she was a misogynist?
LikeLike
Look at her political career.
LikeLike
I have but obviously I’m not seeing what you see. Which is why I ask: what makes you think she was misogynistic?
LikeLike
This is not a conspiration theory. A police state is not there to protect against crimes. This is not what police state is about.
LikeLike
Look at her political career, her friends, her allies…
LikeLike
So you have zero evidence to support your statement?
LikeLike
I’m not your high school teacher. Look at who were more affected by her politics.
LikeLike
And if I had the choice I would rather see Blair dead before Thatcher.
LikeLike
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cameron-we-were-wrong-to-call-mandela-a-terrorist-413684.html
LikeLike