On the one hand, Margaret Thatcher won three landslide elections, triumphed in the Falklands War and got Britain out of a recession. However, she is also remembered for the Miners’ Strike, milk snatching and the poll tax. Either way, her premier was an eventful time, but you would not know this from watching The Iron Lady.

The majority of the plot takes place as an elderly Maggie (Meryl Streep) suffering from dementia begins to clear out her late husband, Denis’ (Jim Broadbent) belongings after his death. As she does this, it triggers a series of flashbacks as she looks back on her life.

When making a biopic about someone, you would expect the film-makers to focus on the most momentous time in that person’s life. Clearly, director Phyllida Lloyd and screenwriter Abi Morgan disagreed. In The Iron Lady, the highlights of Thatcher’s life are gone in sixty seconds. Alexandra Roach gives a convincing portrayal of Thatcher during her early years but there is no mention of her time as a chemist or her training as a barrister.

Key historical events like initiating the Falklands War and the sinking of the S. S. Belgrano receive hardly any screentime at all: a surprise as I expected this to take up the bulk of the film.

Initially, I considered that the reason for this may have been they did not want to portray her in a positive light by highlighting her achievements. Nevertheless, the rise in unemployment and her turbulent relationship with the cabinet, which led to her downfall is extremely underwritten.

Instead of writing a film about what we know about Margaret Thatcher’s life, Abi Morgan decided to write a film speculating about the severity of her dementia. The scenes where Thatcher is talking to Denis’ ghost are purely hypothetical – we do not know whether her condition is as severe as this – yet it takes up the majority of the film. Portraying Margaret Thatcher as a weak, frail old woman, and then naming the film “The Iron Lady” is an oxymoron.

It is not a complete disaster. The scenes that take place in the House of Commons are shot very well and convey accurately how it was for a working class woman involved in politics.

The performances are on the whole, strong. Anthony Head is particularly convincing as Geoffrey Howe. I was a little more disappointed with Jim Broadbent as Denis, who depicts him as a baffoon which is far from the truth.

The Iron Lady has one major asset: Meryl Streep. Her performance is one of the best I have seen in a biopic. It goes beyond an impersonation: she does not merely imitate Thatcher, she embodies her. Many doubted (myself not included) that an American actress would not be able to play such a British role. But Meryl Streep is brilliant and it will be a gross injustice if she does not receive her third Oscar.

Margaret Thatcher’s life could have made a fantastic film. Phyllida Lloyd’s The Iron Lady is a waste of a great performance and interesting concept. With the best actress they could have had playing Margaret Thatcher, they truly wasted what they had. * *

I read this article this morning:

blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ianmcowie/100013939/baby-boomers-with-80pc-of-uk-wealth-shouldn’t-feel-guilty-about-younger-generations-problems/

Normally a baby boomer (someone born between 1945 and 1964) saying all our generations problems are our fault makes me angry as it is their generation who created the economic mess we are now in. However, some of the points in the article highlight that we don’t help ourselves. This blog is also prompted by recently being criticised by a friend for saving a small proportion of my salary instead of always spending all that I earn on enjoying myself. It concerns me when I am considered odd for saving a small amount of money each week, I spend allot of money on drink and entertainment. I can and probably should save much more than I currently do.

I am not suggesting we should become a generation of misers and never enjoy ourselves, simply that if we want to own houses, retire before we are 70 and not be in poverty from then until we die, then once we in full employment we should start saving a proportion of our salary and sign up to a pension when the opportunity first comes along. As Ian Cowie said in the link: “Youngsters who say savings and pensions are boring should ask themselves how exciting poverty in old age is likely to be.” The reality of never thinking about the future in case it never comes, is that the large probability is you will live a long life and have nothing to fall back on apart from the state, when you are incapable of looking after yourself. More immediately it means that unless we are prepared to save for a few years it will be impossible to become home owners unless we are lucky enough to have parental help – the days of 100% mortgages are over.

Former Labour Work and Pensions secretary John Hutton is known for his current work for the coalition government on reforming pensions for state sector workers. He also reformed private sector pensions in 2006 meaning that private sector employers will have to contribute 4% of salary to all employees pensions by 2017 if the employee makes a 5% contribution. He also created the NEST scheme, for companies that don’t want long term liabilities, which means that you can have your own individual pension pot with different employers contributing to it throughout your career. Recent studies have shown that millions of people look likely to opt out the scheme, seeing a 5% personal contribution as unfordable, something I find hard to believe is actually true.

As a Conservative I can’t support more than very basic state provision for a generation which is being given the means to all make provision for ourselves. I understand that some people simply can’t afford to save much but it is a lie to say this is the reason for most 21-40 year olds not saving. Last year I preferred to spend all the money I earnt doing open days etc on beer and a holiday in France, hopefully I have learnt my lesson. I don’t want to sound like a prig, I simply don’t like the idea of hard working taxpayers paying for the consequences of other peoples irresponsibility, its why I am a Conservative.

1. Spring Forum in Cardiff: “I’d rather be a child of Thatcher than a son of Brown… BOOM!” and meeting Liam Fox.
2. Winning the Scotforth East seat for Billy after a 5am start of campaigning.
3. Fincham’s disgraceful dancing winning us a bottle of champagne in Yates’s.
4. I wasn’t present myself but I’d expect that the Right Honourable Nigel Evans MP coming on to Kyle belongs on this list. Also the fact that he and Eric were in Sugarhouse.
5. Champagne Social and the overwhelming amount of freshers that turned up!
6. Question Time drinking game – GWAN DEBS! Miss Swindell summed it up nicely: “We love Debra and hate Mary.”
7. The realisation that there once was a “Thatcher the Musical”.
8. Seeing Rebecca Rollinson down a whole pint of Guinness in one go at Pub Golf 2011.
9. James Calder vomiting out of a Cardiff taxi with Ally repeatedly saying, “You legend…”
10. “Are you a bit gay or proper gay?” No need for a further explanation.

Just a few there. If anyone has anymore to add, post them in the comments below. Happy New Year, everyone! We’re looking forward to many more highlights in 2012

Handing in essays day has arrived, final exams tomorrow and then everyone heads their separate ways for the festive season. On behalf of the Exec may I wish everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Thanks to everyone who came to our socials this year and made them amazing, and I look forward to seeing yourselves, and many more members next year.
We have some exciting events planned for next year so keep your eyes peeled to the blog and the Facebook group and see you then!

Merry Christmas!

Ok, so ive been pretty terrible this term on the gossip front… well that doesnt mean there hasnt been gossiping ive just been too busy to document it!!

Ive woken up this morning after another tory night out, feeling rather fragile, and thought that i could put off revision for a smidge longer by doing this

SO here is an overview of the term thus far….

FRESHERS… where did we find you lot… WOW i have to admit this year has been one of the best for new tory meat and i am very pleased to announce youve all made quite good minions
Becka – new levels of alcoholism, probably the most drunk Tory i know, (old gossip alert: we’re pretty sure she slept with a certain arrogant tory that emma rather dislikes in Hustle on the first social ever… scandalous i know
Leighton: awesome at secret santa gift giving, yet to see him paraletic thought and as an exec member, let alone a tory, this is unacceptable and WILL be rectified next term.
Tory will be ‘proper gay’, Eno will be world leader, spreadsheet will produce spreadsheets, Mostyn will continue to make everyones day with his epic booming laugh (see video of our impressions of this for details) and the rest of you are all wonderful but havent done anything note worthy enough to gain a nickname and a mention yet – better luck next term

The freshers have also had an averse effect on the oldies! a little birdie that saw their walks of shame at 7am on friday morning tells me that after the question time drinking social (that i left at a reasonable and respectable time) they all piled back to pauls waking poor emma and proceeding to turn the flat into an illegal drug rave where the sickos got high whilst watching finding nemo… (so most of that was a lie apart from the nemo bit but im getting bored and wanted to jazz it up… soz )

Last nights pub golf was, as usual, a success. JJ wasnt half as annoying as i remember and you all made rather an interesting impression on christopher.. especially Joe the raving catholic trying to get him to recite prayers in latin and hugging him rather alot… VERY amusing

Sugarhouse became hustle as it appears the cheese just follows the tories wherever we go! All in all guys a pretty awesome evening… ALTHOUGH WE DO APPEAR TO HAVE MISPLACED OUR CHAIRMAN AT SOME POINT DURING THE EVENING… IF FOUND PLEASE RETURN… thanks

In conclusion, its been a pretty amazing term.. roll on term 2!!!

much love minions,

Becca xx

My opinions on Europe are quite euro-skeptic but I don’t think we should try and use the current turmoil in Europe to hold it to ransom. Yes it is important that we protect our interests but it is not the right time to negotiate our relationship with Europe in a fundamental way. My approach would be this “as long as a new treaty won’t harm us, you guys get on with it”. We need to make sure that other in the treaty would mean our industries were effected. I am mainly talking about the financial sector that makes up 11% of all the UK’s tax revenues and creates over 2 million jobs, including my own. We need to allow this situation to be resolved in a timely manner and simply get guarantees that we shall not be adversely effected. Let them get on with it.

Now is not the time for fundamental changes, this kind of renegotiation can be had when we have a Conservative majority and are not in a financial crisis, doing it that way may actually mean we get it right as well.

There is also no need for a referendum if a new treaty would mean either more sovereignty for the UK or a similar level of sovereignty. The untrained people do not need to be consulted when a treaty is only benefiting us, especially as UKIP or similar could use it as a springboard for an EU exit campaign.

So protection for our Industry and no new powers from the UK to Brussels, apart from that go and get on with it Europe.

This week at Lancaster University, we were lucky enough to have a guest lecturer in the form of one Charles Clarke. He told us about the birth of New Labour. It would have been more of a hoot if he had a personality, but then again, you can’t win them all. He told us that the Labour Party was great because they had a lot of female MPs and this was achieved because of All-Women Shortlists.

This may surprise some people, but there is not a great deal in politics that actually boils my blood. Positive discrimination does.

During the designated time for questions at the end, I asked Mr Clarke how he could justify putting gender before ability and merit. As far as I was concerned, he couldn’t but he still did that thing politicians like to do when they answer questions: answer as off-topic as possible/ramble on long enough for everyone to forget the original question…

Here is what I managed to decipher: the party needed to be more balanced and apparently the only way of achieving this was through the implementation of AWS. The Labour Party looked out of date next to the Conservative Party which had a democratically elected leader who was female.

AWS are patronising and a complete insult to any woman that is interested in becoming an MP. The system portrays the message that women could not possibly get anywhere in politics if they have to compete with men. It would be foolish to think becoming an MP is an easy ride so why would women expect to be given special treatment?

Margaret Thatcher fought against a system that was dominated by men and won and she became the most powerful woman in the world. Barbara Castle, Margaret Beckett and Ann Widdecombe did not need AWS to have successful political careers. Jacqui Smith only became an MP as a result of positive discrimination. How is she remembered? For claiming her husband’s porn on her expenses.

Take a look at what would have happened if positive discrimination had been applied to the bigger picture. What if it was time for a woman to be elected in Churchill’s constituency?

The Labour Party broke a law when originally implementing AWS (Sex Discrimination Act 1975), and rightly so. Once in power, they had to enforce legislation (Sex Discrimination Election Candidates Act 2002) that said it would be acceptable to discriminate against men.

You can say what you want about Thatcher, but nobody can validly deny the fact that she worked hard, broke the mould and got to the top. She is living proof that women do not need help from this disgraceful system. Like me, the idea of it would have probably insulted her.

Originally seen this posted over at A Very British Dude, and thought it is worth a repost. So thanks to him.

Got this in an e-mail from an academic buddy – his view of the Lecturer’s union striking.

I am an academic at a leading UK university. Obtaining an academic position is not an easy thing to do and I have worked towards it, pretty much non-stop, since I left school. You will probably need a First Class degree to get onto a funded PhD course. Assuming your doctorate goes well, you need to find a postdoctoral position. There are probably four times as many new PhDs as there are postdoctoral opportunities, all being sought by highly-motivated, breathtakingly intelligent young people who have just obtained their degree. The competition is intense beyond belief.

If you get your postdoctoral position, it will probably be for a term of one to five years, during which time you have to build a publication record that makes you worthy of an academic position. With short postdocs, you might need to re-enter that competitive job market to get a second contract. You need to build enough experience – maybe three or five years’ worth – to be in a position to apply for an academic position, but not too much. Someone who doesn’t manage to get an academic position after six or eight years is at a huge disadvantage compared to the bright young things on the up.

The academic positions are, one again, about one-quarter as plentiful as the postdocs reaching maturity, and even if you get one, it will likely be fixed term. Use this term wisely – by bringing in a lot of funding, for example – and you just might obtain a permanent one.

The rewards though, are immense. I get to work on the thing which is most important to me in the whole world. I get to travel the world. I get to leave work at 2pm if I feel like it, even though I never do. The freedom is there.

I get to make, with my own mortal hand, things that will change the future of science. This, to me, is the most incredible thing that I could ever be allowed to do. These objects are going to be paid for by taxpayers – productive people who work hard only to have a slice of the fruits of their labour hived off and given to me. I am humbled by the trust put in me to use this money as wisely as I possibly can, to advance human knowledge, and I remember the thirty-odd hugely talented PhDs to whom I have, personally, denied the opportunity.

Today, I got an email calling on me to strike. It said that I should consider this hard-won chance-of-a-lifetime to be, well, a job. A job, like in Marks and Spencer’s. That I should consider a few hundred pounds, extracted from people who have had to actually work to fund my dreams, to be worth more than this chance of a lifetime. That I should spit on the thirty poor sods that didn’t get this chance by refusing to use it to its fullest possible extent, and on the people whose jobs went to the wall to pay for the taxes I spend. Somehow withholding marking of students’ papers and delaying their careers, the better to line my own pocket with other people’s money, is portrayed as a virtuous deed.

I am, quite literally, open-mouthed in disbelief. These people have, like me, been given the chance of a lifetime and they are prepared to waste other people’s money, to waste other people’s time, over a few percent on their investments. I can imagine more selfish acts, but not many. These, by the way, will be the same people who rail about the evils of the bankers. Say what you like about the bankers, they didn’t blackmail anyone to get to where they are today. Good luck to them.

So, when you see the lecturer’s unions on strike next week, remember that they don’t speak for all of us. Some of us have work to do.

A view from an academic, who wishes to remain anonymous, but I can confirm is working on stuff, that when he tells me about it, I’m awed at how cool it is. Think about stuff your 8-year old self wishes you did for a living, and that’s what he does for a living.

Today has seen “the biggest strike in the UK for over thirty years” – well if that’s the case we really need to learn how to strike. Take our wonderful city of Lancaster for example, a city with a wide variety of public services. Apart from a couple of hundred people shouting rude things about David Cameron, you would hardly have known there was great disruption planned for today. Having never witnessed a strike on such a large scale, i expected litter covered streets and hordes of people queuing on the streets for operations at LRI, but alas no.

The early indicators suggest that nowhere near the predicted 2 million public sector workers have actively been on strike today. Don’t get me wrong, just a handful of workers absent from work has a negative effect on productivity, so for a million or so to be on strike today will have had an adverse effect on our already fragile economy. Perhaps the reason for the lower than expected turnout may be that, in reality, less than 10% of those balloted by the unions were in favour of strike action.

I am completely in favour of workers choosing to strike, but not today, not in these circumstances. Why should the public sector be immune from cutbacks? After all we are all expected to live longer too – the private sector is paying somehwat towards this, so why on earth shouldn’t the public sector?
Indeed the private sector has already had it’s pensions decimated by a certain Prime Minister, and it had no choice but to keep calm and carry on, to quote a familiar phrase. I heard an interview today with a private sector worker who is an accounts manager for a car company. I thought it sounded like quite a cushy job, however she went on to say that, with an unemployed partner and three children to feed, her gross salary of £14k just didn’t go far enough and that she was struggling to heat her home this winter. She said that she has no hope of providing into her own pension and it is stories like hers, which i doubt are too disimilar to many, which make my blood boil when there are workers on the streets protesting about a slight increase in contributions and a slight decrease in final pension. They don’t know how lucky they are!

*This piece is not meant to offend anyone with family working in the public sector or connected to the public sector, though i do feel very strongly about this issue and will happily answer any questions people may throw at me