11 ms·

I know Thatcher was a polarising individual; for her politics and actions during the mining strikes etc. However, she rose to the top of an extremely male domi

by ErrantX 14y ago

I know Thatcher was a polarising individual; for her politics and actions during the mining strikes etc. However, she rose to the top of an extremely male dominated field through conviction and sheer force of personality. And I think that deserves respect in itself. Given the current issues surrounding gender equality in many fields, her example should serve as inspiration. (Fact I have just learned; she was born just down the road from me! I'm quite surprised Grantham doesn't make a bigger deal of her roots there)

rikacomet 14y ago
Indeed, there is a great hole in my heart today, MG was a good example of how a lady can balance both feminism, and supposed masculine activities of leadership, strong influence, unshakable character, and above all, the ability to change the world as we know it. IG, was a similar case, though unpopular in west, due to the political situations back then, but here is a video, that dives into her personality. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKiQboyDMUo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKiQboyDMUo
chrisvineup 14y ago
Exactly the problem that Emma Goldman had with feminism, if women are looking to hold the same morally bankrupt positions of power that men have then equality is a false hope for all. She fucked over a lot of people, she is hated still by a large portion of the British people to do this as a woman within the male dominated power structures of the time is nothing to be proud of.
- Uchikoma 14y ago
  "if women are looking to hold the same morally bankrupt positions of power that men have" This is pure sexism and stereotyping men.
  - raganwald 14y ago
    Not necessarily. Consider a society with two kinds of "Sneetches." One kind has stars, one does not. They begin with equal numbers on an island with equal opportunities, but socially they have network effects: They prefer to do business with "their own kind" and so forth. Such a system could be unstable: A small, random increase in power by either group could accelerate over time the way tribes in survivor can create coïlitionsn and eliminate everyone else. Now let's say we end up with all the positions of power held by the Sneetches with stars. A Sneetch without a star might make a similar comment. But perhaps, this Sneetch has the insight to see that what needs to be changed is the system, rather than merely shuffling the players around. Putting Sneetches without stars into positions of power in and of itself won't change the inherent problem of network effects. Perhaps things will realign around Sneetches from the West side of the Island, or Sneetches that like a particular sport, but still be discriminatory in a way. This Sneetch might simply want to change the underlying mechanism of Sneetch society. Go for a cure, you might say, rather than relieve a symptom.
    - run4yourlives 14y ago
      What in god's name are you talking about? To suggest there is even a such a thing as being "like a man" is as inherently sexist as suggesting that all women are "too emotional" for any real position of power. Goldman's argument is a version of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Uchikoma is correct to discount it for what it is.
      - raganwald 14y ago
        To suggest there is even a such a thing as being "like a man" is as inherently sexist as suggesting that all women are "too emotional" for any real position of power. Seriously? Maybe I misunderstand you, but it sounds like the following: Woman stands up: "All the positions of power are held by men, who promote other men into positions of power. It is obvious that men are sexist!" To which you reply: "To suggest that men are something-something is as inherently sexist as suggesting that women are too emotional to hold power. You are a sexist!!!!!" Black person stands up: "And another thing, all the men in power are white!" Somebody else replies, "Possibly, but the fact is that we are colour-blind and never noticed it. You are a racist!" :-)
        run4yourlives 14y ago
        Just to reiterate: (the problem) Emma Goldman had with feminism, if women are looking to hold the same morally bankrupt positions of power that men have then equality is a false hope for all. i.e.: If women obtain power their positions should be different from men because men hold morally bankrupt positions. Women who obtain power by being competent at the game as it stands/expressing views similar to men are not worth celebrating at all. I'm not sure what you are arguing, but this is the original point and of course it is obviously a sexist position.
        pekk 14y ago
        Suppose that the people in power are doing things wrong. It is valid and not sexist to point out that putting other kinds of people in power to do the same things wrong, will not solve the real problem. The problem is that they are doing things wrong, not which plumbing they have.
  - scarecrowbob 14y ago
    No-- that's not true. Goldman's statement isn't saying that these positions of powere are morally bankrupt -because- they are held by men. She's saying that the positions of power -are- morally bankrupt, and it doesn't matter which gender inhabits them, they are still bad. We can disagree with her that she's wrong about the morality of those positions, but her statement is not a sexist statement.
- sergiosgc 14y ago
  I am not British, and was 5 when she was in power. I may be wrong, but Thatcher, in my view, falls in the class of politicians with a medium/long term plan. She could have been wrong, but as current events show, it is even worse to be led by politicians who have no idea where Europe will be ten years from now. It looks like no plan is worse than a poor plan.
  - JonnieCache 14y ago
    The disagreement is typically around whether the plan was really about necessary economic restructuring or just the latest assault in Britain's 1000 year-old class war. The actions taken towards the communities she "restructured" since her premiership seem to show evidence in favor of the latter. If thatcher and the tories were really concerned with improving the country as a whole, they would have taken action on the long-term systemic problems with our workforce (education etc) and given the communities they destroyed something to do between then and now. Instead what they did was simply replace the industry with foreign financial wizardry, while leaving the workers to rot. 30 years later, they use the gap in achievement between these two groups as a stick with which to beat the poor even harder. And that's the last I'm saying on this subject today.
    - sergiosgc 14y ago
      Viewed from outside, it looks like Britain's gambit towards financial services was highly successful. True, Britain completely destroyed the industrial might it had in the first half of the XX century. It gained, in the process, European leadership in finance. A number of questions arise, of course. Does finance employ the same people that worked in factory floors? No. Is finance sustainable in the long term? I doubt it, as it is much more mobile than manufacturing (Germany is attacking the British stronghold in finance). Would manufacturing decline anyway? Possibly; in the US it did, but in Germany it didn't. In the end, it is always a game of what-ifs. Anyhow, I'm not in the position to have a sustained opinion on Thatcher's policies. I was way too young, and did not really study British history from the period. I have no idea if they were positive or negative overall. She did have a plan, though. I wish current European leaders had one too, beyond "let's grab what we can while the Titanic is going down".
- Nursie 14y ago
  I'm not sure why you think women in positions of power should lead to an intrinsically better world? Obviously women being properly represented in all walks of life is better in and of itself, but the outcomes beyond equality? This is succinctly summed up in one of the dilbert books - Phenomenon: Equal rights and representation of women in the workplace. Result: Everyone realises women are just as stupid and selfish as men.
  - bcoates 14y ago
    Emma Goldman was an Anarchist, so I assume her preference was for the position to be vacant rather than occupied by a woman.
    - Nursie 14y ago
      Then why even bother mentioning men and women? I'm not trying to make a point here, just wondering really.
- run4yourlives 14y ago
  Or - She saved a country from economic collapse and restored the UK to a position of being one of the world's most powerful voices. The UK was as Greece is today in 1979. Hell there were three months of strikes by miners employed by the government in an unsustainable, unprofitable industry BEFORE she even took office. And people still bitch that their kids didn't get free milk at school for lunch.
  - JPKab 14y ago
    As an American, I don't think I can possibly understand the mentality of late 70's/early 80's Britain. Is there a large percentage of the population in Britain that views WHAT she did as wrong or is it HOW she did it? I can understand the HOW, but why would people think that handouts aren't first hand-ins? Do people really believe there is a such thing as FREE milk? When I hear about the mining strikes causing 3 day work weeks for the entire country, my thought is the same as any other sane individual: You, sir, are cancelled.
    - rahoulb 14y ago
      Britain was bankrupt after the Second World War (and in hock to the US for billions of dollars as well). As part of the attempt to rebuild the country a consensus was formed that the British state would step in and help people - hence the NHS, hence free school milk (as rickets was a very common disease). The unions had too much power for much of that time, but British industry also had terrible management practices so I would put both "sides" as bad as each other. But while Thatcher shook things up and modernised many parts of the economy, she did it in an extremely divisive and many would say callous way - by devastating communities (especially in the north of England), destroying British manufacturing and putting unemployment up to 3 million (with millions more on disability, to make the jobless figures look better). And these are legacies that still live on today - where I grew up there are still houses with barbed wire between neighbours who have lived there for years - as a result of the miner's strike. The north is still significantly poorer than the south, with much higher unemployment. The current government has just pushed through an extremely painful reform of disability allowance that appears to be punishing the genuinely disabled as much as the "skivers". And in Scotland she is so despised that you can't even say her name in public after shutting down much of the country's industry and taking North Sea oil revenue down south. For the most part, nowadays, the question isn't whether the reforms were needed, but whether they had to be done so painfully and whether the benefits of those reforms were shared fairly. There is definitely a north-south divide within the country on that.
_chrismccreadie 14y ago
I cannot disagree more. The fact she made it to the top of a male dominated fields cannot and should not in any way be tied to a notion of respect. Take a trip to North Lanarkshire and you can still see the impact that the closing of Ravenscraig has had on the area. No-one says the name Thatcher in Scotland, it has to be whispered. After having a successful independence referendum scrapped by a labour government she went back on the promise she made to the Scottish people about increased devolution for Scotland, instead turning her into a testing ground for some of the most unpopular Tory policies of all time. This is in no way a personal attack on a woman who is now no longer with us. She was someone's mother and sister and my heart goes out to her family at what most people would agree is a terrible time for a family. However the words "respect" and "inspiration" when describing Margaret Thatcher is not a position that will be shared by many people in Scotland.
- ErrantX 14y ago
  I don't have a firm view on this; however, history is littered with examples of areas devastated by changing economies and new technology. Specifically with regards to the miners - that industry had been in substantial decline since the early 1900s and I'd suggest that whatever happened we'd still be looking at devastated areas today. What happened, though, was as it all came to a head in the 80s, it also coincided with Thatcher's politics of forcing the trade unions to heel. Hence, clusterfuck. (My interest/view here is academic; I've no real strong opinion on who was "good" or "bad", as I've no connection with what happened and so have no right to hold one)
  - MaysonL 14y ago
    forcing the trade unions to heel. Interesting buried metaphor there: treating them like disobedient dogs...
- TheAnimus 14y ago
  But like anything political there is the other side of the coin. For many who simply wanted to continue their work as usual found themselves involved with the consequences of a dispute of miners. Ultimately people like to choose a side to blame for catastrophes such as the 3 day working week (due to power shortages because of the coal strike, electricity had to be rationed). How much hard did that do to other industries. My grandfather at the time an electrical engineer lost his job due rather directly to the 3 day week. For people like them Thatcher was a good thing, ultimately it was not her fault that the unions did not want to compromise on closing mines. The reaction of unions towards a shift from being a publicly subsidised industry I don't think can be described in anyway as sustainable or even 'long term OK'. I find it someone disingenuous of certain areas to blame the government for the result, when the unions often negotiated with such a simple all or nothing mentality. Ultimately blaming her after going all-in isn't right.
andyl 14y ago
Dear god - not more gender politics - please make it stop.
- budde 14y ago
  Maybe if we ignore these issues, they'll just go away...
engtech 14y ago
Should the first female nominee for U.S. Vice Present from the republican party, who rose to the top of an extremely male dominated field, serve as an inspiration for gender equality? edit: mpyne said it best somewhere else in this thread: "He's saying that it's the position of power that is morally bankrupt, not the man that happens to be filling it today. If tomorrow a woman was in the same position of power then it would still be morally bankrupt, because it is the position which leads to moral bankruptcy, not the person filling the position." Perhaps most politicians aren't good role-models because a career in politics doesn't attract the kind of people who are good role-models.
- sultezdukes 14y ago
  Should Hillary Clinton serve as an inspiration for gender equality?
  - ErrantX 14y ago
    I don't entirely like her politics, but have always found Condoleezza Rice quite inspiring. This might be an odd way of putting it (and don't misconstrue what I'm trying to say), but it always seemed that no one ever noticed she was a woman. Proof positive that gender simply doesn't matter if you are the best at what you do.
    - tomjen3 14y ago
      Not only did most people miss that she was a woman, you missed (or didn't point out) that she was black (or what counts for black in politics today).
      - ErrantX 14y ago
        True! An excellent example of my point :D
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
      - 14y ago
keithpeter 14y ago
I would also point out that Margaret Roberts (later Margaret Thatcher) made modest contribution to science http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-04/margaret-thatcher-politician-and-chemist-has-died http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-04/margaret-thatc... Alas, it was downhill after that. Seriously, read Tony Judt's polemic to find out why. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/apr/29/ill-fares-the-land/?pagination=false http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/apr/29/ill-far... PS: Grantham = Newton for me. PPS: I was in Liverpool today when the news arrived. For various complex reasons, there are actually street parties happening tonight. You had to be there in the 1980s to understand this otherwise rather odd fetish like response. I have memories of arriving back in Liverpool Lime Street rail station on a visit from University in the late 70s, walking up Brownlow Hill and being turned back by policemen armed with dust bin lids to catch the bricks being lobbed at them. I had to take the undergound to get to the other side of the 'lines' to get to my Dad. We then had to drive 30 miles around the city to get home (New Brighton). Later that night we watched the smoke plumes over the Anglican Cathedral.

by ErrantX 14y ago

rikacomet 14y ago

Indeed, there is a great hole in my heart today, MG was a good example of how a lady can balance both feminism, and supposed masculine activities of leadership, strong influence, unshakable character, and above all, the ability to change the world as we know it. IG, was a similar case, though unpopular in west, due to the political situations back then, but here is a video, that dives into her personality. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKiQboyDMUo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKiQboyDMUo

chrisvineup 14y ago

Exactly the problem that Emma Goldman had with feminism, if women are looking to hold the same morally bankrupt positions of power that men have then equality is a false hope for all. She fucked over a lot of people, she is hated still by a large portion of the British people to do this as a woman within the male dominated power structures of the time is nothing to be proud of.

Uchikoma 14y ago
"if women are looking to hold the same morally bankrupt positions of power that men have" This is pure sexism and stereotyping men.
- raganwald 14y ago
  Not necessarily. Consider a society with two kinds of "Sneetches." One kind has stars, one does not. They begin with equal numbers on an island with equal opportunities, but socially they have network effects: They prefer to do business with "their own kind" and so forth. Such a system could be unstable: A small, random increase in power by either group could accelerate over time the way tribes in survivor can create coïlitionsn and eliminate everyone else. Now let's say we end up with all the positions of power held by the Sneetches with stars. A Sneetch without a star might make a similar comment. But perhaps, this Sneetch has the insight to see that what needs to be changed is the system, rather than merely shuffling the players around. Putting Sneetches without stars into positions of power in and of itself won't change the inherent problem of network effects. Perhaps things will realign around Sneetches from the West side of the Island, or Sneetches that like a particular sport, but still be discriminatory in a way. This Sneetch might simply want to change the underlying mechanism of Sneetch society. Go for a cure, you might say, rather than relieve a symptom.
  - run4yourlives 14y ago
    What in god's name are you talking about? To suggest there is even a such a thing as being "like a man" is as inherently sexist as suggesting that all women are "too emotional" for any real position of power. Goldman's argument is a version of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Uchikoma is correct to discount it for what it is.
    - raganwald 14y ago
      To suggest there is even a such a thing as being "like a man" is as inherently sexist as suggesting that all women are "too emotional" for any real position of power. Seriously? Maybe I misunderstand you, but it sounds like the following: Woman stands up: "All the positions of power are held by men, who promote other men into positions of power. It is obvious that men are sexist!" To which you reply: "To suggest that men are something-something is as inherently sexist as suggesting that women are too emotional to hold power. You are a sexist!!!!!" Black person stands up: "And another thing, all the men in power are white!" Somebody else replies, "Possibly, but the fact is that we are colour-blind and never noticed it. You are a racist!" :-)
      - run4yourlives 14y ago
        Just to reiterate: (the problem) Emma Goldman had with feminism, if women are looking to hold the same morally bankrupt positions of power that men have then equality is a false hope for all. i.e.: If women obtain power their positions should be different from men because men hold morally bankrupt positions. Women who obtain power by being competent at the game as it stands/expressing views similar to men are not worth celebrating at all. I'm not sure what you are arguing, but this is the original point and of course it is obviously a sexist position.
        pekk 14y ago
        Suppose that the people in power are doing things wrong. It is valid and not sexist to point out that putting other kinds of people in power to do the same things wrong, will not solve the real problem. The problem is that they are doing things wrong, not which plumbing they have.
- scarecrowbob 14y ago
  No-- that's not true. Goldman's statement isn't saying that these positions of powere are morally bankrupt -because- they are held by men. She's saying that the positions of power -are- morally bankrupt, and it doesn't matter which gender inhabits them, they are still bad. We can disagree with her that she's wrong about the morality of those positions, but her statement is not a sexist statement.
sergiosgc 14y ago
I am not British, and was 5 when she was in power. I may be wrong, but Thatcher, in my view, falls in the class of politicians with a medium/long term plan. She could have been wrong, but as current events show, it is even worse to be led by politicians who have no idea where Europe will be ten years from now. It looks like no plan is worse than a poor plan.
- JonnieCache 14y ago
  The disagreement is typically around whether the plan was really about necessary economic restructuring or just the latest assault in Britain's 1000 year-old class war. The actions taken towards the communities she "restructured" since her premiership seem to show evidence in favor of the latter. If thatcher and the tories were really concerned with improving the country as a whole, they would have taken action on the long-term systemic problems with our workforce (education etc) and given the communities they destroyed something to do between then and now. Instead what they did was simply replace the industry with foreign financial wizardry, while leaving the workers to rot. 30 years later, they use the gap in achievement between these two groups as a stick with which to beat the poor even harder. And that's the last I'm saying on this subject today.
  - sergiosgc 14y ago
    Viewed from outside, it looks like Britain's gambit towards financial services was highly successful. True, Britain completely destroyed the industrial might it had in the first half of the XX century. It gained, in the process, European leadership in finance. A number of questions arise, of course. Does finance employ the same people that worked in factory floors? No. Is finance sustainable in the long term? I doubt it, as it is much more mobile than manufacturing (Germany is attacking the British stronghold in finance). Would manufacturing decline anyway? Possibly; in the US it did, but in Germany it didn't. In the end, it is always a game of what-ifs. Anyhow, I'm not in the position to have a sustained opinion on Thatcher's policies. I was way too young, and did not really study British history from the period. I have no idea if they were positive or negative overall. She did have a plan, though. I wish current European leaders had one too, beyond "let's grab what we can while the Titanic is going down".
Nursie 14y ago
I'm not sure why you think women in positions of power should lead to an intrinsically better world? Obviously women being properly represented in all walks of life is better in and of itself, but the outcomes beyond equality? This is succinctly summed up in one of the dilbert books - Phenomenon: Equal rights and representation of women in the workplace. Result: Everyone realises women are just as stupid and selfish as men.
- bcoates 14y ago
  Emma Goldman was an Anarchist, so I assume her preference was for the position to be vacant rather than occupied by a woman.
  - Nursie 14y ago
    Then why even bother mentioning men and women? I'm not trying to make a point here, just wondering really.
run4yourlives 14y ago
Or - She saved a country from economic collapse and restored the UK to a position of being one of the world's most powerful voices. The UK was as Greece is today in 1979. Hell there were three months of strikes by miners employed by the government in an unsustainable, unprofitable industry BEFORE she even took office. And people still bitch that their kids didn't get free milk at school for lunch.
- JPKab 14y ago
  As an American, I don't think I can possibly understand the mentality of late 70's/early 80's Britain. Is there a large percentage of the population in Britain that views WHAT she did as wrong or is it HOW she did it? I can understand the HOW, but why would people think that handouts aren't first hand-ins? Do people really believe there is a such thing as FREE milk? When I hear about the mining strikes causing 3 day work weeks for the entire country, my thought is the same as any other sane individual: You, sir, are cancelled.
  - rahoulb 14y ago
    Britain was bankrupt after the Second World War (and in hock to the US for billions of dollars as well). As part of the attempt to rebuild the country a consensus was formed that the British state would step in and help people - hence the NHS, hence free school milk (as rickets was a very common disease). The unions had too much power for much of that time, but British industry also had terrible management practices so I would put both "sides" as bad as each other. But while Thatcher shook things up and modernised many parts of the economy, she did it in an extremely divisive and many would say callous way - by devastating communities (especially in the north of England), destroying British manufacturing and putting unemployment up to 3 million (with millions more on disability, to make the jobless figures look better). And these are legacies that still live on today - where I grew up there are still houses with barbed wire between neighbours who have lived there for years - as a result of the miner's strike. The north is still significantly poorer than the south, with much higher unemployment. The current government has just pushed through an extremely painful reform of disability allowance that appears to be punishing the genuinely disabled as much as the "skivers". And in Scotland she is so despised that you can't even say her name in public after shutting down much of the country's industry and taking North Sea oil revenue down south. For the most part, nowadays, the question isn't whether the reforms were needed, but whether they had to be done so painfully and whether the benefits of those reforms were shared fairly. There is definitely a north-south divide within the country on that.

_chrismccreadie 14y ago

I cannot disagree more. The fact she made it to the top of a male dominated fields cannot and should not in any way be tied to a notion of respect. Take a trip to North Lanarkshire and you can still see the impact that the closing of Ravenscraig has had on the area. No-one says the name Thatcher in Scotland, it has to be whispered. After having a successful independence referendum scrapped by a labour government she went back on the promise she made to the Scottish people about increased devolution for Scotland, instead turning her into a testing ground for some of the most unpopular Tory policies of all time. This is in no way a personal attack on a woman who is now no longer with us. She was someone's mother and sister and my heart goes out to her family at what most people would agree is a terrible time for a family. However the words "respect" and "inspiration" when describing Margaret Thatcher is not a position that will be shared by many people in Scotland.

ErrantX 14y ago
I don't have a firm view on this; however, history is littered with examples of areas devastated by changing economies and new technology. Specifically with regards to the miners - that industry had been in substantial decline since the early 1900s and I'd suggest that whatever happened we'd still be looking at devastated areas today. What happened, though, was as it all came to a head in the 80s, it also coincided with Thatcher's politics of forcing the trade unions to heel. Hence, clusterfuck. (My interest/view here is academic; I've no real strong opinion on who was "good" or "bad", as I've no connection with what happened and so have no right to hold one)
- MaysonL 14y ago
  forcing the trade unions to heel. Interesting buried metaphor there: treating them like disobedient dogs...
TheAnimus 14y ago
But like anything political there is the other side of the coin. For many who simply wanted to continue their work as usual found themselves involved with the consequences of a dispute of miners. Ultimately people like to choose a side to blame for catastrophes such as the 3 day working week (due to power shortages because of the coal strike, electricity had to be rationed). How much hard did that do to other industries. My grandfather at the time an electrical engineer lost his job due rather directly to the 3 day week. For people like them Thatcher was a good thing, ultimately it was not her fault that the unions did not want to compromise on closing mines. The reaction of unions towards a shift from being a publicly subsidised industry I don't think can be described in anyway as sustainable or even 'long term OK'. I find it someone disingenuous of certain areas to blame the government for the result, when the unions often negotiated with such a simple all or nothing mentality. Ultimately blaming her after going all-in isn't right.

andyl 14y ago

Dear god - not more gender politics - please make it stop.

budde 14y ago
Maybe if we ignore these issues, they'll just go away...

engtech 14y ago

Should the first female nominee for U.S. Vice Present from the republican party, who rose to the top of an extremely male dominated field, serve as an inspiration for gender equality? edit: mpyne said it best somewhere else in this thread: "He's saying that it's the position of power that is morally bankrupt, not the man that happens to be filling it today. If tomorrow a woman was in the same position of power then it would still be morally bankrupt, because it is the position which leads to moral bankruptcy, not the person filling the position." Perhaps most politicians aren't good role-models because a career in politics doesn't attract the kind of people who are good role-models.

sultezdukes 14y ago
Should Hillary Clinton serve as an inspiration for gender equality?
- ErrantX 14y ago
  I don't entirely like her politics, but have always found Condoleezza Rice quite inspiring. This might be an odd way of putting it (and don't misconstrue what I'm trying to say), but it always seemed that no one ever noticed she was a woman. Proof positive that gender simply doesn't matter if you are the best at what you do.
  - tomjen3 14y ago
    Not only did most people miss that she was a woman, you missed (or didn't point out) that she was black (or what counts for black in politics today).
    - ErrantX 14y ago
      True! An excellent example of my point :D
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - 14y ago

keithpeter 14y ago

I would also point out that Margaret Roberts (later Margaret Thatcher) made modest contribution to science http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-04/margaret-thatcher-politician-and-chemist-has-died http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-04/margaret-thatc... Alas, it was downhill after that. Seriously, read Tony Judt's polemic to find out why. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/apr/29/ill-fares-the-land/?pagination=false http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/apr/29/ill-far... PS: Grantham = Newton for me. PPS: I was in Liverpool today when the news arrived. For various complex reasons, there are actually street parties happening tonight. You had to be there in the 1980s to understand this otherwise rather odd fetish like response. I have memories of arriving back in Liverpool Lime Street rail station on a visit from University in the late 70s, walking up Brownlow Hill and being turned back by policemen armed with dust bin lids to catch the bricks being lobbed at them. I had to take the undergound to get to the other side of the 'lines' to get to my Dad. We then had to drive 30 miles around the city to get home (New Brighton). Later that night we watched the smoke plumes over the Anglican Cathedral.