Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
 

 
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Contributors:
  •   Please send any comments or suggestions about America 3.0 to:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Lex's Tweets
  • Jonathan's Tweets
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Julie Burchill on Margaret Thatcher, Newly Timely After Nine Years

    Posted by Lexington Green on July 2nd, 2014 (All posts by )

    [A]s some smart-aleck said, we must change or perish. And who should break our long postwar consensual slumber — not with a snog but with a short sharp smack around the head with a handbag and a cry of “Look smart!” — but the Iron Lady herself.
     
    Mrs Thatcher meant, and still means, many things — some of which she is not yet aware of herself, as we are not. Only death brings proper perspective to the triumphs and failures of a political career; it is only with the blank look and full stop of death that that old truism “all political careers end in failure” stops being true. Only a terminally smug liberal would still write her off as an uptight bundle of Little Englandisms, seeking to preserve the old order, however hard she worked that look at first; voting for her was something akin to buying what one thought was a Vera Lynn record, getting it home and finding a Sex Pistols single inside.
     
    She was just as much about revolution as reaction, and part of any revolution is destruction. Some of the things she destroyed seemed like a shame at the time, such as the old industries — though on balance, isn’t there anything good about the fact that thousands of young men who once simply because of who their fathers were would have been condemned to a life spent underground in the darkness, and an early death coughing up bits of lung, now won’t be?

    Here is the original article. RTWT.

    Let’s hear that one more time:

    “She was just as much about revolution as reaction, and part of any revolution is destruction.”

    The old Tories hated Thatcher exactly the same way the old guard GOP hate the Tea Party, which has evolved into a much bigger and broader reform movement within the GOP.

    Incumbents always hate creative destruction. Why wouldn’t they?

    The old GOP is embedded in the existing framework. It is a structural feature of the old order. It is part of what we call America 2.0, which is now a fading crony capitalist regime, the toxic remnant of a once-great industrial era America.

    The Tea Party, the reform movement, would not use this expression, but they are clearing the rubble so we can build America 3.0.

    Thatcher only partly succeeded in changing her party, and her country. She was a generation early, perhaps.

    The opposition in our country, in our times, by the old GOP, will be even more hostile and intense than what Mrs. Thatcher faced.

    That’s OK.

    It has to be this way.

    The old order does not go away easily.

    There is no alternative.

    (I quoted this article in a post back in 2005. I then said of Julie Burchill: “There is nothing remotely like her mix of sentimental Bolshevism, working class cultural nostalgia, British patriotism and militarism, Judaeophilia, loathing of Germany and (usually) America, detestation of the British upper classes, personal libertinism combined with a hardnosed understanding of the consequences of such behavior, and her devotion to sixties-era British hipness and seventies punk rock. She is often wildly wrong, but always entertaining.” This recent piece by her from the Spectator, The only trouble with Tel Aviv – flying there doesn’t feel scary any more, is good.)

     

    4 Responses to “Julie Burchill on Margaret Thatcher, Newly Timely After Nine Years”

    1. MikeK Says:

      Thatcher was such an interesting contrast to Ted Heath who became her opponent in the party after taking her into his cabinet in the obvious female role as education secretary. I was a fan of Health’s sailing but have always wonder how he amassed his fortune. When he died he left an estate of 5 million pounds and his sailing career involved ever larger yachts. He was a scholarship boy at Oxford. As Hillary Clinton has shown, politics can be very rewarding.

    2. dearieme Says:

      It used to be said that Ted’s yachts were paid for by benefactors who thought they’d improve his image, since a music-loving, politically obsessive bachelor might not appeal to the masses. Ho hum. Dreadful bloody man, in my view.

    3. MikeK Says:

      Did the “benefactors” also supply the 5 million ? Hmmm.

      I did like his sailing, especially early on when he won the Sydney Hobart race.

    4. dearieme Says:

      I wonder whether part of the explanation is that £5 million isn’t all that much for a man who had no wife or children to support. MPs’ pay isn’t wonderful, but their expenses are pretty generous and tax-free, and he was drawing both these for 51 years. He also had a PM’s pension which I gather is pretty good. His house might have been a sizeable part of his estate: good housing in the pricey parts of England is “worth a fortune”- heavens, a house less than two miles from us went for £3.25 million a couple of months ago. If he’d had a family and, say, put three children through boarding school and university, he’d have had little enough left that nobody would begin to wonder whether he was “bent”. Given his income and his outgoings, assume a bit of sensible investment, and there probably isn’t anything left to explain – except those boats.

      Aha, here we are: “Separate arrangements for the pensions for the three great offices of state – the Prime Minister, Speaker of the House of Commons and Lord Chancellor – were abolished for future office holders by the Public Service Pensions Act 2013. The previous arrangements gave entitlement to a pension of half the final office-holder’s salary on leaving office, regardless of length of service.”

      So the bloody man was on a pension of half a PM’s pay for more than thirty years! So the question becomes how the devil he had as little as £5m at death.

    Leave a Reply

    Comments Policy:  By commenting here you acknowledge that you have read the Chicago Boyz blog Comments Policy, which is posted under the comment entry box below, and agree to its terms.

    A real-time preview of your comment will appear under the comment entry box below.

    Comments Policy

    Chicago Boyz values reader contributions and invites you to comment as long as you accept a few stipulations:

    1) Chicago Boyz authors tend to share a broad outlook on issues but there is no party or company line. Each of us decides what to write and how to respond to comments on his own posts. Occasionally one or another of us will delete a comment as off-topic, excessively rude or otherwise unproductive. You may think that we deleted your comment unjustly, and you may be right, but it is usually best if you can accept it and move on.

    2) If you post a comment and it doesn't show up it was probably blocked by our spam filter. We batch-delete spam comments, typically in the morning. If you email us promptly at we may be able to retrieve and publish your comment.

    3) You may use common HTML tags (italic, bold, etc.). Please use the "href" tag to post long URLs. The spam filter tends to block comments that contain multiple URLs. If you want to post multiple URLs you should either spread them across multiple comments or email us so that we can make sure that your comment gets posted.

    4) This blog is private property. The First Amendment does not apply. We have no obligation to publish your comments, follow your instructions or indulge your arguments. If you are unwilling to operate within these loose constraints you should probably start your own blog and leave us alone.

    5) Comments made on the Chicago Boyz blog are solely the responsibility of the commenter. No comment on any post on Chicago Boyz is to be taken as a statement from or by any contributor to Chicago Boyz, the Chicago Boyz blog, its administrators or owners. Chicago Boyz and its contributors, administrators and owners, by permitting comments, do not thereby endorse any claim or opinion or statement made by any commenter, nor do they represent that any claim or statement made in any comment is true. Further, Chicago Boyz and its contributors, administrators and owners expressly reject and disclaim any association with any comment which suggests any threat of bodily harm to any person, including without limitation any elected official.

    6) Commenters may not post content that infringes intellectual property rights. Comments that violate this rule are subject to deletion or editing to remove the infringing content. Commenters who repeatedly violate this rule may be banned from further commenting on Chicago Boyz. See our DMCA policy for more information.