Not enough attention paid by the left to the imagery of Thatcher’s handbag? You’ve not been reading the right blogs, Neal. I write of little else.

http://thoughcowardsflinch.com/2010/11/16/the-meaning-of-thatchers-handbag/

http://thoughcowardsflinch.com/2010/03/10/thatchers-handbag-and-the-meaning-of-money/

Yep

[deleted]

And I think Blair has made more money from simply being a former P.M. than Thatcher ever did or could.

Money, money, money? Grabbing stuff that you’ve little earned? Not giving a damn about the other guy? Whoring yourself out and pimping your ‘fame’?
Sounds like the filthy Blair’s and their legacy to me.

The legacy and example these children WOULD actually have seen!

“Children as young as eight want to the right bag and each tribe has their own make. They copy their celebrity heroes of course. 14 year old Eliza Clarke says “It’s funny. I stand much more proudly; I feel older”. Longchamp reflects her ‘personality’ and makes here feel ‘confident’.”

My word, so Thorstein Veblen’s analysis of Veblen Goods in the 1890s is really all Maggie’s fault in the 1980s, eh?

Amazing, never knew she had a time machine.

The “grinding machine of turbo consumption”…

And for my next cliche…

@6 Just because you are paranoid does not mean they aren’t out to get you…

@OP, Neal Lawson: “Children as young as eight want to the right bag and each tribe has their own make.”

But that is not necessarily how we conduct ourselves as adults. Some people grow up in tribes but few remain so in adulthood.

Scooter racing is a very minority motorcycle sport. The majority of races are hosted by the Vintage Motor Cycle Club, home to enthusiasts who own impeccable Triumphs and Nortons that spurt oil at inopportune moments. Greebos, not Mods.

Poly Styrene sadly died in recent days. As a punk she was identifiable for mixed raced identity (massively significant at the time). And then Two Tone came along.

It is fascinating how much of the free market bullshiters handbook is taken up with the exploitation of children. The Industrial revolution was based on cheap ,child labour, and so too are the so called emerging economies. Without slave workers or child labour capitalism is fucked.

And yet these same morons are always banging on about family and morality. It would be funny if did not stink so much.

Even before the Reform Act of 1832 to make the franchise more representative, some MPs had recognised that completely unregulated labour market led to socially unacceptable outcomes.

Try: The Factory Acts were a series of Acts passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom to limit the number of hours worked by women and children first in the textile industry, then later in all industries. . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factory_Acts

“The Factories Act 1802 (citation 42 Geo.lll c.73, sometimes also called the “Health and Morals of Apprentices Act”) was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which regulated factory conditions, especially in regard to child workers in cotton and woollen mills. It was the culmination of a movement originating in the 18th century, where reformers had tried to push several acts through Parliament to improve the health of the workers and apprentices.

“So the market fundamentalism she espoused is played out over 20 years later with girls as young as eight being caught up in the grinding machine of turbo-consumption.”

Does this mean “children buy things sometimes”?

“They are no longer girls, there is no youth just the opportunity to sell whatever they can to whoever they can. ”

Wow. I had no idea selling someone a handbag was the same thing as obliterating their childhood. I don’t like Thatcher either, but this is hysterical nonsense.

“They are no longer girls, there is no youth just the opportunity to sell whatever they can to whoever they can.”

You don’t actually know any children do you?

10
When analysing the impact of The Factory Act, we tend to forget that it had negative outcomes on the people if affected, although the notion of women and children working in places such as mines and mills disgusted the middle-class senses, it represented survival for thousands of families. Following the introduction of The Factory Act and The Education Act, thousands of children were abandoned because their parent/s could not afford to keep them, and, until that time, children had always worked. Matthew Arnold also wrote about the poor pay of women forcing them into prostitution to survive.
But my interpretation of the OP is, that the author is asking if the ideology of consumption. (Thatcherism) which he sees as being instilled in young children, has totally transformed society’s values. to the extent that Labour has abandoned socialism, of which, my answer is ‘yes’

Duh, I meant Henry Mayhew not Matthew Arnold.

What is the ‘ideology of consumption’? Consumption just means using stuff, doesn’t it?

@5 This has got nothing to do with Veblen goods. This has to do with a society where kids are pressured into wanting things of an excessively high value for their age group. My mother would have skinned me alive if I wanted a designer handbag aged eight.

It doesn’t have much to do with Thatcher, either.

Of course Veblen identified conspicuous consumption. We have always consumed and always will. It’s a deep rooted social need to express ourselves by why we buy. But how far are we willing to let this go and what sort of boost did the politics of the 1980s give it? We have all our lives to buy branded goods why do we allow the not fully formed brains of eight years to be sold things they don’t need at that age with money they don’t have? Where does morality rule over the market? In Sweden they ban advertising to those under 12. What could we do?

@ 16 Jasmine

“It doesn’t have much to do with Thatcher, either.”

More like advertisers who know how to tap pester power. But having the latest and most expensive clothes and toys will always help to make people cool in the eyes of many of their peers – exclusivity is desireable in and of itself. I’m not sure that we can really change this, and I definitely don’t think it shows that childhood has been sacrificed on the altar of Maggie Satan.

“What could we do?”

We could act like grown ups and tell our children what they can and cannot have instead of asking the state to make the decision for us.

Torquil,
why do you think so may parents fail at this task? Is it that so many are being bad parents or is it because the social pressure to conform and be normal in the play ground is so great that parents win some battles but lose so many others.

@20

why do you think so may parents fail at this task? … is it because the social pressure to conform and be normal in the play ground is so great that parents win some battles but lose so many others.

No.

…Is it that so many are being bad parents …?

Yes.

15
So you just consume without thinking about it
But the ideology of consumption refers to materialism – look it up yourself if you want to know what that means.

“Torquil, why do you think so may parents fail at this task? Is it that so many are being bad parents or is it because the social pressure to conform and be normal in the play ground is so great that parents win some battles but lose so many others.”

I don’t think many fail at this task and those that do are bad, lazy parents. On the whole though I think what you see as failures are just choices you disagree with. My daughter is only seven so she won’t be getting her ears pierced any time soon, but just about every one of her friends have. Not because their parents have failed, been pressured by ‘consumerist society’ or are stupid, but because they disagree with me that that is wrong.

My kids have a lot more stuff than I ever did, but not because I am weaker willed than my parents, its just that stuff is cheaper. and kids like it. If you go out and meet some of the kids you will be surprised at how silly this sort of alarmism seems. Don’t you remember the old fogeys saying similar things about your generation when you were young? I do. Didn’t they seem ridiculous? That’s because they were.

they like it because its whats there and what they see and what others around them have. Is that good? are they missing out on other pleasures like the time their parents spending earning the money to pay for the stuff. Could there be simpler cheaper pleasures that dont destroy the planet. Do they like the stuff for a short while and then want the new design? And how young should our young consumers be? Its cheap and they like so who cares?

@ 23:

“Don’t you remember the old fogeys saying similar things about your generation when you were young? I do.”

Not necessarily disagreeing with your main point here, but to argue (as you seem to be doing in this part of your post) that people have always expressed such fears, therefore such fears are unfounded, is I think a little logically dubious.

@ 25 XXX

“Not necessarily disagreeing with your main point here, but to argue (as you seem to be doing in this part of your post) that people have always expressed such fears, therefore such fears are unfounded, is I think a little logically dubious.”

It’s not a final argument, no. But it does indicate that fears over “the state of the next generation” are often founded on dislike of change, presumptions of superiority, or just an ill-informed view of reality (remember Joanna Lumley recently saying that when she was a kid they got told off for misdemeanors, but now kids steal stuff?). Said fears might of course be based on none of those things, but it’s best to consider how strong a factor confirmation bias and the like can be when considering issues of this sort.

‘Does this mean “children buy things sometimes”?

When I were a lad we had nothing to play with other than our own rickets – but tell that to kids today and they won’t believe you.

@ 27 Shatterface

“When I were a lad we had nothing to play with other than our own rickets – but tell that to kids today and they won’t believe you”

Rickets? Luxury! I used to lie awake at night as a kid, dreaming of having rickets of my very own.

“they like it because its whats there and what they see and what others around them have.”

Do they? Maybe they like it because it is intrinsically marvellous. Who knows?

“Is that good? are they missing out on other pleasures like the time their parents spending earning the money to pay for the stuff.”

Hard to say, but parents have to work to feed their kids and nobody seems to have a likely solution to that so the point is moot.

“Could there be simpler cheaper pleasures that dont destroy the planet.”

Children’s pleasures are destroying the planet? How?

“Do they like the stuff for a short while and then want the new design?”

I don’t know, do you? Perhaps you stick with the same thing from a lack of imagination and miss the deeper pleasures of change and new design, ever thought of that? What if it is your pleasures that are shallow and meaningless? Perhaps it is you who needs re-educating and the kids who have it right.

“And how young should our young consumers be? Its cheap and they like so who cares?”

Everyone is a consumer from the day they are born. Perhaps you mean ‘shopper’? If so, I see no reason why there should be an age limit. My four year old bought a very pretty sea shell the other day that made him very happy. I think both he and the planet will survive the exchange.

Women generally move out with lots of stuff hence it’s very essential to carry a handbag which will keep them organized like handbags which will have compartments for sunglasses, keys, lipstick, cell phone or any other basic necessity.

Just wish to clarify a point, Labour are not a party of the left
Pro- privatisation, Nationalistic, pro Nuclear weapons, gap between rich and poor between 1997 and 2010 widened to an even greater degree than under the previous Tory Government, de-regulation of the banking system allowing unfetted Capitalism, Pro-Monarchist, illegal wars perpetrated against Iraq and unnecesary war aginst Afghanistan… need I go on?