Friday
Jun192009
Revealed: Dennis Thatcher's middle names
Friday, June 19, 2009 Further to my earlier post about Carol Thatcher speaking at a tobacco trade lunch on Wednesday, I am told that Ms Thatcher give a sparkling speech that could only be described as "very supportive" of the cause.
Then, having told a very funny joke that involved a group of psychiatric patients and her father on a train, she revealed that Dennis's middle names were "gin" and "smoker".
All this was met with rapturous applause and it was suggested, by some guests, that CT could be "our Joanna Lumley".
Not sure about that, to be honest, but you've got to hand it to Carol. Like her mother, the lady's got balls.
Reader Comments (16)
I knew it all along, and I knew that her name didn't exactly go down well with the usual names on this board, seeing as I was the only one to mention her in the other post about her.
Power to her, and her mother, God bless her!
That's not a very flattering picture of Carol, Simon. It makes her look like a man in drag...
A poker playing friend of mine used to do PC and network support for the Thatchers and other MPs and at nine o'clock AM Denis would turn up at his Westmister office, pick up the papers, sit down and open up his draw. Inside was a bottle of scotch (gin apparently is apocryphal) and would have a sharpener and a smoke to start the day.
Deenis died aged 88 of pancreatic cancer and I am sure both he and Margaret are/were appalled at the smoking ban.
I find it hard to understand this habit of people looking back at Thatcher with fondness.
She was, without doubt, one of the most authoritarian leaders this country has ever seen and paved the way for Government to walk all over the electorate.
Exactly the thing that everybody hates so much about our current Gov,
Short memories people.
"Short memories people."
Tony, I couldn't agree more.
Ted Heath started it by dishonestly selling us into much more sinister EU control than just the benign Common Market he announced. He later stated, "The British people are too stupid to govern themselves". [Really, these were his own words]. He ended up a rich man.
Thatcher pushed it forward by leaps and bounds. She forced many of our major industries to close down due to allowing exhorbitant bank interest rates and high cost of electricity. As a besotted fan of hers, I wrote her an impassioned letter. I pointed out that her policy of survival of the fittest against such impossible odds, would ruin this country.
Silly gullible me! Thatcher ended up a very very rich woman.
History will show, if we are ever allowed to have a history, that Tony Blair did his best to alleviate what was already a done deal. He mangaged to retain sterling and retain our border controls. Unlike Brown,he didn't have much time to concentrate on the EU. Every year of his premiership he had a major problem to deal with in addition to normal government. It began with inheriting the Poll Tax & Millenium Dome and ended with his great achievement of finally solving the Irish problem. In the middle was the nuisance of six months Presidency of the EU - a mere figurehead with no real power, but time consuming. Above all, there was the unwelcome issue of the war in Iraq. Always, he had snake-in-the-grass Brown undermining him wherever possible.
Then came BROWN, who signed away the last vestiges of our freedom and will undoubtedly be a very very very rich man.
With the exception of Brown, among all the miscreants above, Thatcher stands head and shoulders as the force which really killed our country. No country can survive without its owm manufacturing industry.
Short memories people.
Margot -
Are you being, I wonder, ENTIRELY serious about the ghastly National Tragedy that was 'Tony Blair' ?
Apart from continuing the process of Appeasing Irish Terrorism - thus giving thugs-with-Semtex the world over a renewed sense of hope - he:
Dismembered the United Kingdom
Destroyed the House of Lords as an independent revising chamber
Created 3000 new criminal offences
Dumbed down the education system even further
Displayed utter comtempt for and a complete ignorance of Rural England
Brought in the utterly authoritarian foxhunting and smoking bans
Politicised the Civil Service
Politicised the Police Force
Undermined our Armed Forces
Stoked up the National Debt to unprecedented levels
Raised taxes more than 35 times
Encouraged the MASSIVE growth of a bloated, rapacious Apparat
Effectively ended - by various means - what remained of 'Parliamentary Democracy'
Anyone think of any more ?
Please - spare us any more such 'achievements' !
Of course Margaret Thatcher made mistakes (her most unforgivable IMHO being the destruction of Grammar Schools under Cottager Heath) - many of them serious ones: but at least she HAS come to see the dangers inherent in our 'membership' of the EU.
The Poll Tax, was, of course, the perfect pretext for her political assassination at the hands of the Heathites.
I, incidentally, was quite happy to pay the Poll Tax. I failed to see the justice in a system which allowed seven-in-a-house Council Estate Breeders to be subsdidised by OAPs on limited incomes. But that's just me.
And I, too, weep at the destruction of our Manufacturing Sector (I spent eight years in engineering myself), and the loss of all those wonderful skills.
But MUCH of that may be attributed to the trucculent trade unionism of the Sixties and Seventies, incompetent management, and an unwillingness to Adapt and Innovate.
And - other than by employing MASSIVE state subsisidies - how, pray, would we be expected to maintain such a sector in a 'globalised' economy, with British workers on £10-12 an hour competing with Chinese ones on a few bowls of rice ?
In any fight against the steady crawl towards Global Governance - Worldwide Socialism for You, but Unfettered Freedom for the Elite - who do you think would now be the the more likely to fight for our freedoms - Lady T or Blair ?
And - on a less elevated, but thread-related note - I'd sooner have Carol Thatcher ANY day in preference to that squirming Brummie snitch who co-presents 'The One Show' !
Finally:
I just pray that the American People - who are suffering VERY similar problems to our own - don't take as long to see through the preposterous Barack Obama as it took US to see through TB.
I'm certainly not into praising TB, but in truth if it were between him and MT I'd have to go with TB.
MartinV
You make some good points about TBs failings, but to start with the these 3 points ruins your post.
"Apart from continuing the process of Appeasing Irish Terrorism - thus giving thugs-with-Semtex the world over a renewed sense of hope - he:"
Can you not actually see that we remain an occupying force in another country on this? Ireland belongs to the Irish, we should have never been there.
"Dismembered the United Kingdom"
How can you actually say that after the point above?????
"Destroyed the House of Lords as an independent revising chamber"
Oh purrrrllease. The HoLs is, was and always shall be an old boys club, used throughout history for the most part by the Tories for rubber stamping their legislation.
The fact is that none of the 3 main parties can be trusted to run this country in the interests of ALL its people.
The simple answer...
Don't vote for ANY of them again.
Tony -
'Ireland for the Irish', eh ? Glad you began with such a simple problem !
Who, exactly, are the 'we' who first did the 'occupying' of the Auld Country, may I ask ?
The Vikings, the Normans, the English, the Scots ? And how long must an 'invading' race stay before they are granted the RIGHT to stay ?
The fact is - like it or not - that the Protestant (Anglo-Scottish) component, together with a substantial number of ('Irish') Catholics, wishes to remain part of the United Kingdom. THEY, at least, have shown no inclination as yet to be thrown into the arms of a Foreign Government.
And I hope they never shall - but the choice is theirs to make.
As much as I sympathise with the romantic belief in a 'United Ireland',and as much as I admire the Irish People, I have to ask: when were they EVER (truly) united (save, perhaps, under the Crown) ?
Were it not for the purblind stupidity, indifference, and callousness of earlier 'British' governments, Ireland would probably still be a part of the British Isles politically, as it is geographically.
I WAS, however, referring to the idiotic semi-independence of Scotland and Wales. The latter is harmless enough, but the former has bred a mean-spirited, inward-looking provincialism that does a brave and highly inventive people no favours.
But it suits the executives of a fiercely undemocratic and increasingly authoritarian 'Europe' very nicely, thank you.
They used to call it 'Divide and conquer'.
And not an army in sight !
And 'Europe', of course, is just another step towards that wonderful One-World Government (staffed, no doubt, by Spiritually-Advanced Beings somewhere in Tibet) so beloved of cotton-headed New-Agers, utopian lefties, and Blair's Internationalist buddies.
Just think:
No more War !
And no more Freedom, either.
Who next, I wonder: the Isle of Man, Cornwall, the Channel Isles (whom Her majesty holds as Duke of Normandy)?
The English are by far the dominant party in this hitherto highly successful partneship, but who would seriously advance an 'England for the English' agenda ? Not me, for one.
In any case, whatever the merits of a case for 'Irish Independence', they can in NO way justify the bestial acts of torture, murder, and general gangsterism that characterised the 'Troubles'.
Terrorism - whether state or non-state-sponsored - should NEVER be appeased, period.
But I must admit that I'm a bit of a softy in this regard: I would NEVER blow the legs off a young bride for the sake of A Principle.
It's a weakness of mine.
As for the House of Lords' being a 'rubber stamp' for 'Tory' legislative proposals, you must have been VERY young during the years of the Thatcher Terror. Margaret Thatcher probably had more items of legislation blocked, overturned, or forcibly amended than any other Prime Minister of the last century: but she DIDN'T throw all her toys out of the pram and scream 'Off with their heads'. She, at least, respected the constitutional proprieties - the product of hundreds of years of trial and struggle.
None of this mattered a jot to Blair, with his adolescent attachment to a 'progressive' (ie destructively Left-Liberal) agenda.
So, Tony, it seems we must agree to differ on those three points.
However, I'm happy to report that we ARE one on the Main Issue: there is - on current evidence -NO single party worthy of the trust of the British People (although there are elements in UKIP that I DO like).
The Eternal Pub Bore's lament that 'they are all the same' has finally achieved some validity, alas.
Time for another English Revolution, methinks - but without the civil war this time, please.
Any ideas ?
Peter,
Why is everything so black and white with you? I am NOT a Blairite, I simply spoke in the interests of fair play. With his arch enemy, the EU puppet Brown, as his right hand man and always busy elsewhere, he didn't stand a chance. Also in the interests of fair play, I say again, as I've said before, that I admire your style of writing and the sound common sense you so often portray. I agree that each of us has the right to support the political party of our choice. It is the continuous Tory deification of Thatcher that really gets my goat. She did so much damage to this country and it was her own party who got rid of her. Now they give her standing ovations. Short memories indeed!
By all means vote Tory, if that is your considered choice. By voting Tory you are voting to remain within and dominated by the EU. One must presume that this is also your considered choice. The Tories have enjoyed the privilege of being the Opposition party throughout Labour's tenure of office. Had they been anti-EU, they have had ample time and freedom to say so and do something about getting us out. The present eurosceptic mutterings are simply expediency.
The British public have spoken. Labour is finished. Your fight will be against the LibDems. As with the Tories, it is to their own personal advantage that they remain within the EU. They don't even bother with expedient mutterings.
So vote for Tories or LibDems and you are voting for even further domination by the EU.
The latest EU domination to slip quietly through parliament is in the quote below:-
Friday, 19th June 2009
"The UK has just lost control of it's major export industry, The City.
The recent decision to create the three European finance 'super regulators' means that control has passed abroad, never to return."
"Poul Nyrup Rasmussen once told me that "We do not like your Anglo Saxon way of doing business" and insisted that he would stop us." said UKIP Leader Nigel Farage. "And now they have."
"It might not look like much, three 'super regulators', but it's the beginning of the end for The City as the global centre for finance and innovation. This is purely the politics of beggar thy neighbour.
"This is simply an all out attack from the Continent based upon pure jealousy of one of our most successful industries. Unable to create their own globally competitive financial markets they've decided therefore to cripple ours."
Are you infatuated by me Margot, or is it just an age thing?
I haven't written anything on here, so why are you directing your anger at me (yet again)?
There's a famous line in the movie "Taxi Driver", which goes as follows:
"You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? Then who the hell else are you talkin' to? You talkin' to me? Well I'm the only one here. Who the f**k do you think you're talking to?"
Robert De Niro (Travis Bickle)
Peter -
I suspect that Margot may be right: anyone SERIOUSLY concerned about the continuing strangulation of our sovereignty and liberties by the bully-boys of the European Superstate needs to think hard about where our parties stand.
Clearly, the Lib-Dems sold out long ago: you only have to hear Shirley Williams blethering on about Peace In Our Time (nothing to do with NATO or democracy, apparently) to recognise that 'Europe' is as much a matter of Religious Conviction with them as 'Global Warming' is with the Ghastly Greens (even when the Planet is demonstrably cooling).
As for Labour (once THE Euro-sceptic party)....
At present, of the three established parties the Tories are the ONLY hope for those of us who want OUT (and I don't really care how it's done, frankly).
But what sort of 'hope' is that ? On current evidence, a pretty forlorn one, I'd say.
Why, for example, would Cameron employ such a crass phrase as 'banging on about Europe' if he ever had ANY serious intention of:
a) Giving the People a say (for once).
b) Re-negotiating our memberships terms
c) Giving the matter anything more than a passing thought.
Can anyone remember the last time a major speech on this theme was made by ANY Eurosceptic member of the Party ?
Neither can I. And - following the recent 'expenses' furore' - the Whips now have another weapon in the armoury to ensure meek compliance with the Party Line.
Cameron simply doesn't have the stuff of a Revolutionary about him - and it'll TAKE a Revolution to get us out of this bloody mess.
My instincts, frankly, are to support UKIP: Nigel Farrage is a much more impressive performer than the Media in the UK allows us to believe, and there's a GENUINE sense of passion about him that I find attractive.
We need MUCH more than Cameron's Fabian tactics of waiting for The Enemy (Labour in this case - but 'Europe' in reality) to exhaust itself.
We need a clear-sighted STRATEGY to fight a war that most people in this land don't even seem to be aware we are fighting (if 'fighting' is the right word).
And we certainly need rather more than the usual MUSH about 'schools n' hospitals' (gimme a break), 'climate change' (what's new, Dave ?),
and the rights of transgendered badgers to get married and adopt children (we MUST respect that choice).
Peter Hitchens MAY (sadly) be right: the ONLY hope for this country now is the destruction of the Tory party - followed by a MAJOR re-alignment of political forces in Parliament that reflect the GENUINE needs and concerns of the people of this still-great Nation. A re-alignment, moreover, that allows GENUINE debate once again - and that means real ARGUMENT and the conflict of IDEAS: not the sort of vapid managerialism that masquerades as 'politics' in this country today.
So, Peter - some questions:
First, does Cameron UNDERSTAND the REAL 'challenges' of the Age ?
Second, does Cameron really CARE ?
Third, if he DOES both understand AND care, is he prepared to MAKE ENEMIES - and LOTS of them -in order to meet those challenges (as Margaret Thatcher was) ?
Fourth, is he - frankly - UP to it ?
Remember: we are speaking of a man who said that he 'LIKES the country as IT IS' (You really need to get out more, Dave).
Hardly the sentiments of a would-be Shaker-Of-The-Century !
My guess is that he's more worried about upsetting 'Ken' (formerly 'Kenneth') Clarke - our erstwhile Jazz-And-Euro-loving Foreign Secretary (no time to read the Maastricht Treaty, I'm afraid) than about appeasing the heartfelt anger of the British People (those of us who are still awake, that is) at fifty-odd years of betrayal.
Kindly prove me wrong - someone, ANYONE...........
It seems that I am being dragged into this argument whether I like it or not? First I have Margot telling me I only see things in black and white, when I had in fact never mentioned anything to with what she or the rest of you are talking about, and now I have Martin asking me questions about David Cameron.
All I can say in answer to your questions Martin, is that when David comes round for tea later, I'll relate your questions to him.
In case I bump into Tony Blair as well this afternoon, does anyone have any questions for him as well?
Peter.
OMG! I've moved up a thread. Sorry Peter.
I'm up to my eyes at the moment, trying to sort out a group of 127 for my forthcoming three day Tour Manager group at Wimbledon. No excuse, I know.
While tackling a mountain of washing up just now I chided myself for even bothering to try and influence leaders of the three main political parties to opt out of the EU. [Four if one includes the Greens]. Each person has only one life. How can anyone expect a person guaranteed the certainty of immense personal wealth to give it up?
Back to the kitchen sink - and I apologise for having a grey moment.
Peter,
I've just double checked and, in fairness to my dotage, you ARE on this thread. Yours was the first comment.
I know I am on it Margot, but only as a first light hearted post in praise of Maggie and her daughter. I definitely didn't get into any in-depth debates on the subject.
Nevertheless, I completely accept your first reply post to me (above) and accept your light hearted answer also. No hard feelings.
Peter
Peter -
My apologies: I had NOT intended to portray you as the Sybil of the Tory Party.
I just felt - in light of earlier posts of yours - that you somehow had a more informed insight into current Tory thinking than many of us here.
Mea maxima culpa.
I find that on the few occasions when Tories these days comment upon anything of any importance on the radio or TV, my eyelids start drooping.............(there they go again)
Must be a medical condition.
Good idea about asking Tony Blair, though: HE probably has the answers.
And - for the record - I, too, tend to find the Anti-Maggie ('Out,out, out !!!!') rhetoric somewhat tiresome.