Hang on – didn’t Gordon Brown ‘admire’ Thatcher?
Only three months after he became prime minister, Gordon Brown invited an elderly dementia sufferer who once lived in the house he was then occupying to revisit her former home. But this act of splendid Christian charity carried with it a scarcely veiled political subtext aimed at Middle England and the Labour left alike.
By having Maggie round for a cuppa – or perhaps a drink more to the Iron Lady’s liking – and then sending her away with smiles all round and a bouquet in her hands, he was telling the electorate and the activists alike that he was, if not perhaps quite her child, then at least the secretary of her fan club.
Less than two week previously, he had told a press conference:
“I think Lady Thatcher saw the need for change,” he said.
“And I think whatever disagreements you have with her about certain policies – there was a large amount of unemployment at the time which perhaps could have been dealt with – we have got to understand that she saw the need for change.
“I also admire the fact that she is a conviction politician … I am a conviction politician like her.”
The inanity on display here is breathtaking. Were the changes that Thatcher saw the need for changes for the better? What politician does not have any convictions, if only the conviction that they deserve to be running the show? We are not told.
If these words mean anything at all, they represent a brazen attempt by Brown to outflank ‘heir to Blair’ David Cameron from the right. He mounted a consistent campaign to have us all consider him as the heir to Thatcher.
It wasn’t always like that. In 1989, Brown wrote a book entitled ‘Where There is Greed: Margaret Thatcher and the Betrayal of Britain’s Future’.
‘Brown’s account of the achievements of Thatcher is a detailed and damning reckoning of a truly remarkable decade in British politics,’ the jacket blurb observed.
‘The book tells how a government with unique opportunities to plan for the 21st century wasted ten years and £120 billion in pursuit of the social and economic doctrines of the 18th; how the rhetoric of increased competition resulted in the destruction of our international competitiveness; how a party officially committed to the concept of the family left huge numbers of families impoverished and divided; how the doctrine of the unfettered market has invaded and eroded fundamental provisions for health, education and welfare; how the basis of our future industrial success has been undermined through the neglect of our national infrastructure, the gradual attrition of essential research and training and a catastrophic and culpable failure to invest when unprecedented billions were available; and how our civil liberties have been subject to assault on all sides.
‘This informed and impassioned account of the true consequences for Britain of the Thatcher era by one of the brightest Labour MPs of his generation, will astonish and infuriate, and Margaret Thatcher’s claim for her achievements will never sound quite the same again.’
I can only speak for myself, but it did not astonish or infuriate me personally half as much as what Brown did 18 years later. The subsequent intellectual climbdown of 2007 was, if nothing else, grossly intellectually dishonest.
After this week’s ‘Thatcher’s child’/’Son of Brown’ spat at PMQs, it’s important to remember that the categories might not be mutually exclusive.
---------------------------
| Tweet |
Dave Osler is a regular contributor. He is a British journalist and author, ex-punk and ex-Trot. Also at: Dave's Part
· Other posts by Dave Osler
Filed under
Blog ,Labour party ,Westminster
11 Comments || Add yours below
Reader comments
Well, given that the Labour Party has made no serious attempt to reverse her major reforms they’re children of Thatcher as well.
To be fair though, all the parties are also the grandchildren of Atlee, and presumably the illegitimate descendent of Lloyd George. I suspect Disraeli may be in the common genealogy as well, but we need to check parish records to confirm this.
Someone normally ends up defining an epoch and setting up systems which are universally accepted (where universally has the value of ‘by everyone who wants to be electable’). Thatcher did that for the late-twentieth century – she liberalised the economy (and failed to stop the concordant liberalisation of society she did not seem to realise would run alongside that) and destroyed one sector of vested interests (the old unions – unions are good, unions serving political ends against democracy are not). To try and undo that would appear to be a retrograde movement to the electorate, in the same way as abolishing the welfare state or the NHS. Effectively, Mrs Thatcher changed the parameters of politics, the space in which the game is played. So yes, all modern politicians are her children, because there is no sensible alternative set of parameters which the electorate can accept.
Admittedly, that does not mean to say that Labour have tried to move the parameters – I think Dave’s point is correct there, in that there has been surprising acquiesence to Mrs Thatcher’s reforms. But to be honest, that is probably why they had three terms of government?
If Brown’s the son of Thatcher, and the Tory cabinet are also children of Thatcher and Milliband is a son of Brown, then does that mean that Milliband has a load of uncles and the odd aunt that sit opposite him at work? I’m confused.
What it means is simple the genes which make a Tory have spread into the New labour camp and it’s getting hard to tell one from another.
Mind you they still make me smile with we are socialists.
“Gordon Brown invited an elderly dementia sufferer who once lived in the house he was then occupying to revisit her former home”
Sarcastic crap that demeans you.
If you dont know by now what was different about Margaret Thatcher vs Gordon Brown, then I imagine that no amount of explanation is going to help you out now.
GB wanted at the time to look like he deserved to be in No 10. Tradition demands that all new PM’s learn and are seen to learn from their predecessors on a non partisan basis. It looks good on TV as well. No one in their right mind beleived or as far as I can tell were meant to beleieve that GB was suddenly a convert to Thatcherism.
To argue that GB and Mrs T were in any serious way on the same political page, is, ludicrous.
Oh no Dave – you’re just scraping around trying to find things to be provocative about. If you recall it was the Tories themselves who got rattled and – thinking ( probably rightly) that Thatcher would lose them the next election – sent her packing in a typically Tory-rats-from-a-sinking-ship manner. It wasn’t until she was safely on the brink of doo-larlyness that they have hypocritically U-turned and canonised her. St Margaret is restored – hallelujah! Gordon merely took Christian ( son-of-the-manse) pity on one who had been so harshly rejected by those who claimed to be her loyal-unto-death followers. He kindly showed her around her old haunts (haunts if you please!) in the hope that the surroundings that the Tory party had kicked her out of would remind her of happier times (not for himself – not for us but for her) – true compassion. Unsullied Christian action on Gordon’s part – “do good to those that spitefully use you and persecute you etc” – Even Arthur Scargill would have approved – wouldn’t he? ‘-Forgive – seventy times seven.’ Innit? I hope Gordon didn’t claim for those flowers on expenses though – that would be taking pity and charity a bit too far.
Notwithstanding the fact it is a routine engagement of Prime Ministers to have the odd cup of tea with ex premieres, it was at least three months into his time at no. 10.
Blair, on the other hand, was sliming it up to Thatch immediately – she was his first official visitor in fact.
What I can’t quite understand is why this article at all? That New Labour was fully in favour of every single piece of Tory Employment legislation was no secret, and Brown even boasted over the low-waged, ‘flexible’ British workforce. But he, and the arch Blairites are both gone, and amid the most important leaks since the Pentagon papers, against the background of mass protests against a weak but vicious Government, you choose to write about one of the most irrelevant pieces of Yesterday’s news. Dumbfounding
Reactions: Twitter, blogs
- Liberal Conspiracy
Hang on – didn't Gordon Brown 'admire' Thatcher? http://bit.ly/galpjt
- Tom Wheatcroft
RT @libcon: Hang on – didn't Gordon Brown 'admire' Thatcher? http://bit.ly/galpjt
- Marmaduke Dando
RT @libcon: Hang on – didn't Gordon Brown 'admire' Thatcher? http://bit.ly/galpjt
- Rachel Hubbard
Hang on didnt Gordon Brown admire Thatcher? | Liberal Conspiracy: http://bit.ly/eE9xch via @addthis
You can read articles through the front page, via Twitter or RSS feed. You can also get them by email and through our Facebook group.
» Workfare – what does the evidence show?
» The real agenda behind Telegraph’s abortion investigation
» How Scotland Yard monitors prying bloggers and journalists
» When disabled people want to work – employers can hold the back
» Revealed: the reality behind Workfare and why it doesn’t work
» Job snob? No, I’ve got the T-shirt
» Why country-by-country reporting matters to our wellbeing
» If Unions want to become stronger, they need to modernise
» Why work “reforms” in Spain are a warning for workers across Europe
» Five things you need to know about the NHS bill
» Bigger. Fatter. Gypsier. More Racist.
|
62 Comments 15 Comments 23 Comments 10 Comments 24 Comments 19 Comments 17 Comments 83 Comments 204 Comments 85 Comments |
LATEST COMMENTS » Spike1138 posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » sackcloth and ashes posted on Ten weeks to London's election: where Ken needs to improve » Dick the Prick posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » pagar posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » the a&e charge nurse posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » Spike1138 posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » Spike1138 posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » Spike1138 posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » Robin Levett posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » Robin Levett posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » Bob B posted on Workfare - what does the evidence show? » pjt posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » pjt posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » pjt posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » Spike1138 posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation |









