Tories song to praise Thatcher actually a pisstake


9:20 am - April 13th 2013

by Sunny Hundal    


      Share on Tumblr

In their rush to promote the single ‘I’m in love with Margaret Thatcher’ – Tories seem to be glossing over one crucial fact: the song is entirely a piss-take.

In fact it was never intended to appreciate Thatcher. The band – the Notsensibles – are not fans of Thatcher either.

Well done Tories for giving some of your money to an anti-Thatcher song!

.

David Osler summed it up…

Notsensibles were a Burnley based punk band and wrote other similar pithy songs. ‘I’m In Love with Margaret Thatcher’ was released in 1980 to ‘celebrate’ her election victory.

Meanwhile, Tories have also been spreading rubbish about the Ding-Dong song.

.

That is actually untruie. The song was published by Time Warner, but written by Yip Harburg.

Nice try Tories!
Please go ahead and waste more of your money buying an anti-Thatcher song.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Sunny Hundal is editor of LC. Also: on Twitter, at Pickled Politics and Guardian CIF.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Media ,News

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


Louise Mensch in “talking utter bollocks” shock.

Well Ted Turner still owns the rights to Time Warner films and he is a Republican

Classic Liberal Conspiracy – assuming anyone who disagrees with you is stupid. We all know it was written as a “piss-take” – we just have a sense of humour, unlike the po-faced left…

If you’d still like to buy it, it’s here: https://itunes.apple.com/gb/album/im-in-love-margaret-thatcher/id567824425?i=567824493&ign-mpt=uo%3D4m

Why does Mensch still make asinine political tweets after deserting her former constituents and the Conservative Party. Back to writing chicklit, Lou. I haven’t read any of your novels but if people have done they must have sold and so been better than your bonkers tweets.

Hmm. Who actually gets the money from a sing is more complex than just who wrote it.

In theory, sure, the songwriter (and in this case it would be 50% for the lyricist, 50% for the music composer) is supposed to get songwriting royalties.

But that isn’t always the case for a number of reasons.

1) Their publisher will always get a goodly chunk of the money. You employ a publisher to go collect all he money from all the world’s radio stations, TVs, player piano licenses, music performance licenses and so on. The split has varied over the years. A seriously big star today might get 70 or 80 % of the royalties, 20% say to the publisher (think Elton John today for example). Lennon and McCartney were, I think I’m right in saying, on 35% when in the Beatles.

2) Royalty buyouts. It’s not uncommon for royalties to be bought out by the publisher. To offer a lump sum now for the right to collect the run off royalties into the future. Would you like $20,000 now or $500 a year for the next 70 years into your estate? sorta thing.

3) Work for hire. Not all songwriters keep their royalty rights. “Here’s a job, here’s some money, now we own what you do”. It wouldn’t surprise me at all to find that this is the way Hollywood worked back then. That film work remained the property of the company making the film.

What actually is the case here I have no idea at all. I’m just pointing out that it’s more complex than “he wrote it so his estate/foundation will get money”.

One more thing. In the UK the real earner is “needle time”. The amount the radio stations pay the songwriter for playing it over the airwaves. £50 a time on Radio 1 last I heard. If they only play a 5 sec snippet then this money will not be paid. You’re allowed up to 7 secs before you have to pay it.

Complicated stuff these royalty rights. The sound recording rights are extinguished: over 70 years old. But the songwriting rights, whoever they actually belong to now, are still extant: 70 years after author’s death they run to.

“What actually is the case here I have no idea at all.”

If it’s any help, the income from Harburg’s royalties was estimated at half a million dollars a year in the mid 1990s.
http://www.johnlahr.com/honky-extract.html

“Well Ted Turner still owns the rights to Time Warner films and he is a Republican”

Seriously? Do you know who Ted Turner is?

This is getting more and more childish and pathetic by the day. Do you honestly think nobody realised the song was a piss-take?

9. Dislecksick

Babies. What a scoop.

10. Planeshift

“Would you like $20,000 now or $500 a year for the next 70 years into your estate? sorta thing.”

This, by the way, is the reason why some in the music industry push drugs on up and coming stars. 😉

If you were starting to get a series of chart hits, then signing this kind of deal is utterly stupid. Unless you needed lots of money quickly.

Planeshift: people certainly do get signed up to some pretty shitty deals. Elton John managed to overturn his original publishing deal in the courts on the grounds that it was absuive.

I want to say that his publisher was Derek James but really not sure about that.

The buyouts though, no, they’re nomrally at the other end of a career. Someone had hits while young and then is wondering what to live on now they’ve reached 50. Publisher offers lump sum for rights. Then the songs get recycled across every budget release for decades afterwards.

A number of black American artists have been very badly treated in this manner.

On a more amusing note there’s a (probably apocryphal) story that Justin Hayward of the Moody Blues sold the publishing rights to “Knights in White Satin” for a £5 note. He was skint and wanted to go out on the lash. The other bloke has been collecting the money all of these years.

“Do you honestly think nobody realised the song was a piss-take?”

It’s certainly pretty mystifying. Why would people complain that people were being disrespectful to Thatcher, and respond by trying to get a piss-take of Thatcher to the top of the charts three days before her funeral? You can surely see why people find it puzzling.

“On a more amusing note there’s a (probably apocryphal) story that Justin Hayward of the Moody Blues sold the publishing rights to “Knights in White Satin” for a £5 note.”

Surely _Nights_ in White Satin?

The song for next week: https://itunes.apple.com/gb/album/coal-not-dole-single/id634779721 – start buying on Sunday. No questions over where the money goes here, written by a miner’s wife, released by a small independent folk label with a long association with the Waterson/Carthy family. No ethical dilemmas and no reason for the BBC to ban it.

Do you honestly think nobody realised the song was a piss-take?

To start off with, no, I think they didn’t, once it came to light that it was however came the digging in of heels and claims that ‘yeah, well, we knew it all along, so who’s dumb now eh?’.

Wouldn’t exactly be out of character now would it?

Certainly the peculiar person who blogs under the name Cranmer and continually refers to himself as ‘His Grace’ didn’t show any sign of being aware it was a piss-take (though he did say he would have preferred Rolf Harris’s ‘Two Little Boys’, “it being one of her favourites and embodying, as it does, the core of her political philosophy”):
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/im-in-love-with-margaret-thatcher-for.html

The songs from Wizard of Oz are in the public domain, so the question of who gets money from this is really murky. Several versions are currently flying around. From the OCC:

“In line with standard procedures, the Official Chart position under the artist credit The Wizard Of Oz Film Cast combines sales all the versions derived from the 1939 film recording, including versions credited to Judy Garland or The Munchkins. In fact, Garland’s vocal (either sung or spoken) does not feature on the track.”

On another note, I’m amused by Mensch’s claim that the right are against censorship. Has she not read some of the statements on this from some of her colleagues? Or heard of the broadcasting ban on Sinn Fein? Or Section 28?

What happened to the Daily Mail campaign to get True Blue in the charts? Has that one been quietly dropped now?

@Waterloo,

Or the attempted ‘Spycatcher’ ban, or the loss of Thames TV’s broadcasting licence suspiciously soon after it broadcast a critical documentary, or the ousting of the then BBC director-general, or the Video Recordings Act…

@11

Dick James it was.

The Eric Idle / Neil Innes Beatles send-up, The Rutles, had a figure called “Dick Jaws” (James was also involved in Northern Songs with Brian Epstein), played by Barry Cryer.

And yes, it was “Nights In White Satin”, from the first Moody Blues album by the 1967 line-up, Days Of Future Passed.

20. Shatterface

Well, the Republican’s adopted Springstein’s ‘Born in the USA’ without understanding it.

This comment above sums it up > “Why would people complain that people were being disrespectful to Thatcher, and respond by trying to get a piss-take of Thatcher to the top of the charts three days before her funeral?”

And Theresa May chose to use Primal Scream’s Rocks. Although that’s less a case of not understanding it and more “wait, what? Did you actually listen to the lyrics”. Primal Scream are hardly the most subtle of bands.

23. Shinsei1967

“Why would people complain that people were being disrespectful to Thatcher, and respond by trying to get a piss-take of Thatcher to the top of the charts three days before her funeral?”

Because they aren’t the same people.

Some Tories think the song is disrespectful.

Some Tories think Thatcher wouldn’t care a bit and would support people doing whatever they want with their own money, that’s market forces after all.

And some Tories think it would be a giggle to try and ramp up a rival song.

“Because they aren’t the same people.”

Tsk. That can’t possibly be true. ‘Coz all Tories are bastards see, and all bastards iz Tories. A monolithic block who care only to grind the faces of the proletariat into the dust.

Come along now, how can Sunny possibly get all right thinking people up in arms to overthrow the oppressors if we are to detect nuance and difference in the enemies?

“Because they aren’t the same people.”

You’re saying that the people who are trying (pretty unsuccessfully at the moment!) to push “I’m in Love” up the charts _weren’t_ unhappy that the campaign to get “Ding Dong” to number 1 was disrespectful to Thatcher?

That’s difficult to believe.

26. Planeshift

” Elton John managed to overturn his original publishing deal in the courts on the grounds that it was absuive.”

The amount of people I know who signed their deals at 3.30 am in various Indian restaurants in the UK, pissed out of their heads…..lol. (Small labels mind)

28. Shinsei1967

@Chris

No, I’m saying that “people” have more nuanced and varied opinions than the simplistic binary approach implied here.

It’s possible to think that it is disrespectful (well, it is disrespectful, that’s sortof the point) but that Thatcher was a political figure and it is beholden in a democracy for us to criticise political leaders.

The likes of Daniel Hannan positively revel in this argument and think Thatcher would be delighted with some (fairly minor) criticism from the “usual suspects”. The opinion polls (52% general approval) are what I’m sure count for her rather than 50,000 downloads.

Similarly there are plenty of people who think it disrepectful and also think it silly of Louise Mensch to attemp to ramp up a rival song.

Then I sure the great majority of the population either have no opinion of think it very silly spendingg 79p to buy a song you don’t actually want.

By the by, I see that some of the royalties from the Ding Dong song are going to Andrew Lloyd Webber, as the owner of the rights to the stage version of the Ding Dong song (which some people are buying).

Shinsei1967

Well, you did say above “they aren’t the same people”.

But I doubt it’s worth speculating too much about it. I suspect a lot of the people participating in the campaign to buy “I’m in Love” did initially think it was some kind of tribute rather than an out-and-out piss-take. At any rate I find that easier to believe than that large numbers of Tories were trying to put a piss-take of Thatcher at the top of the charts just ahead of her funeral for “a giggle”.

The opinion polls (52% general approval) are what I’m sure count for her rather than 50,000 downloads.

Got the number of participants for the opinion polls? Is it more than 50,000?

Fuck. My link was DAG posting Nick Cohen. oops.

32. Joy Braithwaite

I am thinking back to the time before Thatcher, as per Glenda Jckson and Ken Livingstone who show us that we were better as people before Thatcher came in. It is a complete myth that she saved the country, she actually sold it as my time in the civil service taught me. Now all our institutions are scared of litigators and PFI initiatives and do not represent the best interests of the country.It is good to see how far the right have sunk in their attempts to mearly slur the left rather than use actual political debate to reason it out. In the reviews I’ve made of Thatcher’s method she is clearly of little substance but worked the system round to make her look efective.

Is it not pathetic that people who are clearly not teenagers think that the Charts are of any relevance whatsoever these days?

Also, Sunny is criticising people trying to push the Notsensibles track. Does he also criticise people buying the Wizard of Oz song or does he think that a good idea? (as opposed to it being childish, spiteful, immature, misogynist & contemptible).

I was opposed to Mrs Thatcher when she was in office in pretty much all she did; & the consequences of her policies that have been with us ever since. However, I shudder to think what sort of civilized society we would have if the type of ‘people’ maliciously celebrating the death of a person were in power.

By the way, I suspect most people on here had never heard of the Notsensibles before last week. I remember buying “I’m in love…. Thatcher” on a 7 in vinyl after hearing it on John Peel. It was obviously not a pro Mrs Thatcher song. It was just a silly pointless record with a nice riff which as a youngster I liked. Had it been pro Mrs Thatcher then I imagine I would not have bought it.

To be honest, I don’t think the intentions of the people that wrote the song matter terribly here. After all, I’m fairly sure that Harburg & Arlen weren’t thinking about the death of 14 year old Margaret Roberts when they wrote “Ding Dong”.

This is all so unedifying.

The dingdong song is offensive.

And I’m anti Thatcher (her policies that is).

36. Keith Reeder

“The dingdong song is offensive”

Not NEARLY offensive enough to match her legacy…

37. Chaise Guevara

@ 33 paul d

“Also, Sunny is criticising people trying to push the Notsensibles track. Does he also criticise people buying the Wizard of Oz song or does he think that a good idea?”

Did you actually read the article? He’s not criticising the intent, he’s laughing at them for not realising it’s a piss-take.

I think silencing Big Ben on Wednesday is a bit of an over-reaction to the ‘Ding Dong the Witch is Dead’ campaign.

The dingdong song is offensive.

I hate to be the one to point out the bleeding obvious, but it’s supposed to offensive.

40. Charlieman

Still for sale: 7″ original, The Not Sensibles, Redball Records. Sleeve is a bit scruffy on edges but the photomontage is perfect.

If we’d continued on the socialist path of the 1970s, the UK would now be North Korea – without the hope!

Remember, iindustrial production was higher in 1990 than in 1979, and New Labour destroyed more of the industrial base from 1997-2010.

We’re told that her deregulation of the City (which broke the old boy network and let in the “barrow boys”) ushered in an era of greed and was the cause of the great crash. But the crash was the result of the preceding credit boom. Credit booms are the result of governments pumping too much money into the economy – which Thatcher was adamantly against.

According to the Left, the proles are oppressed, and the source of that oppression is economic freedom. The Left wants the working class living in state housing, travelling on state transport, working in state-controlled jobs, receiving a state education….All in a highly regulated environment. The Left fights not to change, but to preserve, working practices (aka inefficiency) and “working class communities” (aka disadvantage).

Mrs Thatcher saw that “working class” people wanted the things she wanted – to own their own home, to leave some money to their children, to own a few shares, maybe start a little company, go on foreign holidays, own a car or even two cars!

Mrs Thatcher saw voluntary profitable economic exchange as an essential and vital part of a truly human existence. Her commitment to economic freedom was moral and inspired by a (Christian) love of and confidence in other people. The “market” was not a wicked thing. It was lively and sociable…

Enjoy and learn:

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/margaret-death-of-a-revolutionary/4od#3508791
or:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSrEpMYYpUs

Kinnock’s squirming is a joy to behold!

What you lefties have to understand is that the future consists of a country run by Johnson/Cameron/Thatcher/Mensch/Gove clones for the likes of
· Right wing t**ts like Kojak (sorry not right wing, although I haven’t a read of post his that isn’t) who seems to have a lot a time to post, for a non slacker Thatcherite, especially when he is writing his autobiography “Arse pinching in the 70s”
· Parasitic lawyers like extreme right wing tories like Tim J and his Mrs ,where the only the deserving poor (i.e the ones who vote Tory) will have access to a fair trial.
· Doddering old sods like John77 where vital ATP didn’t reach his brains cell’s Krebs cycle in his days of malnutrition during the Wilson days.
· Cjcj who isn’t getting the right quality of maids for his fragrant mrs, hence the short posts. Or is that he hasn’t the courage to stick his neck out.
· The vast majority of journos , whose heroes like Littlejohn and Delingpole, busy themselves bullying transgender teachers and discussing hanging climate scientists.
· Religious conservative nut jobs such as SMFS
· I am lefty but brigade (you know Nick Cohen, Martin Bright et al). All card carry members of the Gove fan club. As left as Maggie’s right t*t
· Not forgetting TONE!!!!!, DtP , Jack C and the rest of assorted right wing morons who have so much certainty that it borders on fanaticism.
· Post war pensioners and baby boomer generations who were lefties but now vote Tory in their droves and also take 2/3 rds of the welfare budget.
· A media consisting of unlikeable public school boys/girls, bitter ex comp types, and slightly strange ex grammar prats. Whose only aim in life is to put together subjective pro Maggie montages.
Daft songs won’t make any difference

We’re told that her deregulation of the City (which broke the old boy network and let in the “barrow boys”) ushered in an era of greed and was the cause of the great crash. But the crash was the result of the preceding credit boom. Credit booms are the result of governments pumping too much money into the economy – which Thatcher was adamantly against.
So what about the LDDC

“If we’d continued on the socialist path of the 1970s, the UK would now be North Korea – without the hope!”
Evidence. You moron it was the callaghan government of 1978-79 that started moneterism. Read Richard w post on the other threads
“Remember, iindustrial production was higher in 1990 than in 1979, and New Labour destroyed more of the industrial base from 1997-2010.”
Evidence please, also no effect of North sea oil

“We’re told that her deregulation of the City (which broke the old boy network and let in the “barrow boys”) ushered in an era of greed and was the cause of the great crash. But the crash was the result of the preceding credit boom. Credit booms are the result of governments pumping too much money into the economy – which Thatcher was adamantly against.”
So deregulation had no effect. Also didn’t she billions into the LDDC

According to the Left, the proles are oppressed, and the source of that oppression is economic freedom. The Left wants the working class living in state housing, travelling on state transport, working in state-controlled jobs, receiving a state education….All in a highly regulated environment. The Left fights not to change, but to preserve, working practices (aka inefficiency) and “working class communities” (aka disadvantage).
So at the high point of Victorian capitalism it was better.
Great times for many in slums.

Mrs Thatcher saw that “working class” people wanted the things she wanted – to own their own home, to leave some money to their children, to own a few shares, maybe start a little company, go on foreign holidays, own a car or even two cars!
Every politician believes in that moron.
So we didn’t have holidays in the 70’s, didn’t start companies. leave money to kids. Where is the share owning class now, sold them to EDF.

p.diddy @ 42-4:

You rant, you splutter; but you have few, if any, facts to support your opinions.

You rant against Thatcher because she challenges your world-view: that the “working class” are homogenous and that they do not have aspirations.

“You rant, you splutter; but you have few, if any, facts to support your opinions.”

“You rant against Thatcher because she challenges your world-view: that the “working class” are homogenous and that they do not have aspirations.”

When did I it was wrong to have aspirations. But every politician wants to help people obtain their aspirations, for purely selfish political reasons. We had aspirations in the 60’s and 70’s such as going on package holidays.
I didn’t hate maggie. My view is that she was a mediocre, Baldwin type PM. She did some good things such as the anti union legislation , others not so.
I just don’t like her supporters.
North Korean automans filled with adoration and never allowed to say that sumpreme leader didn’t do anything wrong. Certainity breed fanatism

“Kinnock’s squirming is a joy to behold”
Great example of Thatcherite Christianity. Enjoying somebody els discomfort

48. tigerdarwin

here is anpther nice little one from 1980 by the Stiff little Fingers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWD5Y-TOOyU

49. Charlieman

@48. tigerdarwin; “here is anpther nice little one from 1980 by the Stiff little Fingers…”

It is worth noting that SLF ceased writing Northern Irish politics songs when they became a popular UK band. They retained a political edge but changed; if they were not in Ulster, they felt unable to address Irish politics.

For a laugh, take a look at SLF delivering Suspect Device with the bloke in suit and tie pogoing at 1’30”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBYoNYuUVk0

For Sale: Stiff Little Fingers, Suspect Device, rigid digits records, yellow label PLUS free copy of The Not Sensibles.

@30 Cylux,

What is the relevance? 50,000 out of the total population is a much smaller percentage than 52.

51. The Maelstrom of My Memory

“In their rush to promote the single ‘I’m in love with Margaret Thatcher’ – Tories seem to be glossing over one crucial fact: the song is entirely a piss-take.”

Wrong, it was neither for nor against and I speak as one who heard it when Peel used to play it too.

Look at the lyrics. It’s not difficult. There’s really only one verse and one chorus.

I’m in love with Margaret Thatcher
I’m in love with Margaret Thatcher
I’m in love with Maggie T
I’m in love with Margaret Thatcher
I’m in love with Margaret Thatcher
I’m in love with Maggie T

Oh Margaret Thatcher is so sexy
She’s the girl for you and me
I go red when she’s on the telly
Cos I think she fancies me

It was just a stupid sing along like the Toy Dolls “Nellie the Elephant.” None the worse for that of course.

52. Charlieman

@51. The Maelstrom of My Memory: “Wrong, it was neither for nor against and I speak as one who heard it when Peel used to play it too.”

Me too. My original copy of the Nor Sensibles is for sale. It is a Redballs record, and there is a funny story about it.

It is all over. Or perhaps not. Not Sensibles getting in the charts?

@3

“Classic Liberal Conspiracy – assuming anyone who disagrees with you is stupid. We all know it was written as a “piss-take” – we just have a sense of humour, unlike the po-faced left…”

Can you feel the (right-wing) sense of victimhood oozing from every word of this comment?

@51

“Wrong, it was neither for nor against and I speak as one who heard it when Peel used to play it too”.

Really? That’s not what the Not Sensibles are saying.

No Loulou, it isn’t the slightest bit interesting. But beieve it if it makes you feel wanted.

“Certainly the peculiar person who blogs under the name Cranmer and continually refers to himself as ‘His Grace’ didn’t show any sign of being aware it was a piss-take (though he did say he would have preferred Rolf Harris’s ‘Two Little Boys’, “it being one of her favourites and embodying, as it does, the core of her political philosophy”):”

Maybe it’s just as well that suggestion wasn’t taken up!


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Tories pushing a song to praise Thatcher was actually a pisstake … | Worship Leaders

    […] From Google Blogs Search- Worship Music […]

  2. British Thatcher fans mistake satirical song for tribute | Dear Kitty. Some blog

    […] Tories pushing a song to praise Thatcher was actually a pisstake (liberalconspiracy.org) […]





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.