Thatcher to be given State Funeral

NorthernMonkey Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 03:36:30 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

At first you think it's a strange joke but if today's Daily Mail is anything to go by, Brown is set to agree to giving Thatcher a state funeral when she dies.




The last PM to get a state funeral was of course Winston Churchill. This is fair enough given that he led to country to victory against the tyranny of Nazism and stood strong when defeat looked most likely.

Thatcher on the other hand only served to divide this nation and anybody who lives north of Oxford (and indeed, many south of that line) must feel this is a kick in the teeth. Quite how anyone who supported the Apartheid regime in South Africa, was friends with General Pinochet, used the police in this country to wage civil war against her own fellow citizens in 1984, abolished councils in areas where the people voted for a party other than her own, introduced Section 28, tried to introduce the poll tax, tried to destroy the NHS, saw a colossal increase in the number of homeless people, turned many of our cities into ghost towns, destroyed communities, presided over enormous increases in unemployment and whose most famous quote is "there's no such thing as society" can merit the nation's highest honour is quite beyond me.

Still, I'm sure Gordon knows best...

tags: , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Thatcher to be given State Funeral | 59 comments (59 topical)

Re: Thatcher to be given State Funeral (#1)

by red flagger on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 03:49:03 PM GMT

Shocking. Churchill, whatever you may think of his politics (and I'm no fan) united the nation in a time of great despair, hence I can understand the state funeral. Thatcher, however, is such a devisive character that I can't understand why they would want to do this.


Re: Thatcher to be given State Funeral (#2)

by fluffymike on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 03:50:37 PM GMT

This truly serves to prove so many bad things!

The woman who destroyed community, social responsibility, british industry, and sold us out to Europe does not deserve a state funeral and Labour politicians should be ashamed of even giving the idea toilet room!


Re: Thatcher to be given State Funeral (#3)

by jkitleft on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 03:52:53 PM GMT

My feeling was that last year when he met her at No.10, it would've been less contraversial if he had pushed her.

Anything that is described as 'necessary' that she did, could have been solved in a far more social democratic way.

We now live in a country of extreme inequality, and the community breakdown which she exacerbated is now leading to higher crime rates.

She wanted more home ownership, but the right to buy should have meant that council homes were replaced if bought. Now, it is just a subsidy to property developers. The housing crisis of today is her fault.

She claimed to be an 'inflation buster'. But her tax relief for the rich has distorted inflation. If Brown really wants to put the pressure on wages, he should be condemning the boardroom pay which has wildly inflated house prices, and inflation.

People saw her as being a great leader after the Falklands. Seriously? Labour would not have gotten rid of the subs patrolling the Falklands, and when she did, Galtieri pounced. She is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of British soldiers.

Oh, and her anti-communism is apparently a sign of being pro-democracy. Lets not invite Michelle Bachelet to this funeral then, as she would probably quite like to spit on Thatcher for her support of Pinochet, that led to the torture of Bachelet's father. If Mandela is still alive, lets not invite him either. And her adulation of America's stifling of democracy in Nicaragua, and of the war criminal Henry Kissenger rids this pro-democracy facade.

And lets not forget her assault on local democracy. I always find it ironic that small state conservatives hate devolution. Funny that...



Labour all wanted Churchill to be PM after the Norway fiasco. They had been condemning fascism alongside Churchill in the '30's. He wasn't right to be a domestic leader. But we needed him until 1945.

The way to check the most nation changing Prime Ministers is to see their long term legacy. If we are measuring Thatcher by her long term legacy, then I would say she left us less egalitarian, broken up, more vunerable, and more greedy. I do not know a single New Labour supporter who could excuse what she did. Not I, Northern Monkey, not even Luke Akehurst. The horrors she helped to inflict upon the world, and upon this nation can never be forgived.

What worse way to remember her legacy than with a sichophantic worship of her when she dies.


Re: Thatcher to be given State Funeral (#21)

by alexswanson on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 08:47:35 AM GMT

Labour would not have gotten rid of the subs patrolling the Falklands

It was a patrol ship, and of course Labour would have got rid of it. Right now we're actually fighting two wars, and the lack of consideration given to the soldiers is breathtaking, we don't even have a fill time defence minister.

 

her anti-communism is apparently a sign of being pro-democracy

You don't agree? You think Soviet Communism was democratic?

 

They had been condemning fascism alongside Churchill in the '30's.

No, they didn't. They called Churchill a "warmonger" and opposed rearmament.

 

 


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher to be given State Funeral (#4)

by RonnieBennett on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 05:41:50 PM GMT

The sooner the better.
Ronnie.


Make it a double then! (#8)

by pbyrne on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 07:55:28 PM GMT

There's something wrong with our PM! Not even Tories would suggest anything so daft.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher to be given State Funeral (#5)

by TonyH on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 06:05:10 PM GMT

Northern Monkey - what on earth were you doing reading the Daily Mail??

Personally, I think all Prime Ministers should have State funerals since it's the highest office in the land (that you be voted for).

That said, there's no doubt that Lady Thatcher's funeral will be a magnet for protesters.

Having said that - Charlie Haughey, the most corrupt politician EVER in Ireland, was given a State funeral and nobody showed up - a pretty telling and final insult.


Re: Thatcher to be given State Funeral (#7)

by NorthernMonkey on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 06:54:33 PM GMT

Northern Monkey - what on earth were you doing reading the Daily Mail??

Always read up on the enemy! ;-)


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher to be given State Funeral (#20)

by TonyH on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 08:44:41 AM GMT

Good policy. But don't forget to hold your nose. ;-)


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher to be given State Funeral (#6)

by snowflake5 on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 06:29:12 PM GMT

Let her have her state funeral. Yes, she hurt a lot of people in the 1980's - but she's had her punishment in spades in the way the Conservatives have treated her. You expect your opponents to hate you and give you a hard time, but your own side...

I actually felt sorry for her when she stepped down in 1990. I wanted her to go, but for the electorate to deliver the defeat in the normal manner. The knifing of Thatcher by the Conservatives was breathtaking, savage and cruel. She's had to live since 1990 (18 years) with the fact that the people whom she helped the most (the Tories) were the people who valued her the least and ditched her with almost chilling efficiency. Her torment all these years has been to live with that bitter reality. By all accounts she is a very lonely lady.

Thatcher was actually pleased to visit Gordon Brown at No 10 because he had the grace to show courtesy to an old lady when her own party didn't have time for her. She even took toys for his children.

I'm glad we are different in the Labour party. I'm glad we showed dear old Michael Foot respect and didn't topple him even though he was useless as a leader. I'm glad we were respectful to Kinnock and Blair, and letting Kinnock try for two elections to win, and giving Blair a good send-off at the end. And I hope we are similarly respectful to Gordon Brown and let him face the electorate in the general election. There is no shame losing a general election, that's democracy. There is shame though in knifing leaders in a cold bid for power.

When Thatcher has her state funeral, all the news bulletins will feature how she was slain by the conservatives. It will be a salutory reminder of how brutal the conservatives are, and what a different and more civilised organisation the Labour party is.


Re: Thatcher to be given State Funeral (#9)

by grimupnorth on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 08:19:48 PM GMT

If we needed any  more  proof that  Gordon Brown   has not got a bloody clue then this is it. Points taken re Churchill's   funeral. Made the same on  my blog. I'm even  old enough to just about remember it.
I remember    far more clearly the  miners' strike, the Falklands, the horror  of THREE election defeats to the Tories. The people's March For Jobs  , the hawkish relationship with Reagan. Now Brown  is colluding on some  pomp and circumstance farrago. A disgrace.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher to be given State Funeral (#10)

by snowflake5 on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 08:40:30 PM GMT

Everything you say about the Thatcher government is true. But it's also true that it was a long time ago - it's eighteen years since she stepped down. We are now in power (and have been for eleven years), and have changed the country utterly. Thatcher doesn't threaten us anymore. Surely we are big enough to be compassionate to a broken enemy?

Because she is broken. When Thatcher met Gordon Brown, Conservatives put it about that she was mentally ill and unfit, and Thatcher's people furiously denied this. I don't know what this old woman of 83 thought about her own party rubbishing her like this - another stab in her heart from the Conservatives. There's an awful horror about watching Conservatives in action.  They are like a tribe of brutal savage chimpanzes on the rampage eating their own. Labour on the other hand is civilised and compassionate and big enough not to hold grudges (at least most of us are like this!). 

As to why Gordon Brown invited Thatcher to meet him - it was a courtesy return invitation, Thatcher invited him to meet her in 1983 when he was a new backbencher. I understand that the state funeral for her was arranged between Blair and the Queen and Brown is simply honoring the commitment. The Queen didn't like Thatcher much either if you go by Alan Clark's History of the Tories (she was incenced by Maggie enough to go so far as to break protocol and drop comments about how much she like "nice Mr Kinnock"). But her Maj too will be big enough to priside over Thatchers state funeral. It takes a certain panache to treat your enemies kindly... 


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher to be given State Funeral (#12)

by grimupnorth on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 08:59:43 PM GMT

I would be  interested to learn what Neil Kinnock thinks about this issue. Pinochet was pretty  old and broken when he died - he was also a friend of Thatcher and a mass murderer. It's not "panache" , it's a disgusting and totally unnecessary insult to the  labour  movement.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher to be given State Funeral (#16)

by snowflake5 on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:19:22 PM GMT

Yes, Pinochet was a dictator and mass murderer and couldn't be forgiven under any circumstances.

But Thatcher was not a mass murderer. She was simply our opponent and a democraticaly elected one too. And she did some good things - such as signing the Single European Act, which changed the EEC into the EU, brought in harmonised and rigorous health and safety standards and free movement of people. Therefore being kind to her is perfectly reasonable, particularly given the state she is in.

I'm always irritated when Tories go over the top and compare Gordon Brown to Hitler, Stalin and Mugabe and do so with apparent seriousness. I always think what a bunch of nutters and idiots they must be if they can't understand the difference between living in democratic Britain under New Labour and living under a murderous dictator. But you are making the same mistake equating Thatcher with Pinochet...


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher to be given State Funeral (#17)

by jkitleft on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:33:20 AM GMT

No one is saying that she conspired with him to murder people. But right-wingers have a strange defenition of freedom. If you privatise social security in a dictatorship, as opposed to having universal healthcare in a democracy, Thatcher seemed to regard the former as being the example of freedom.

She is not akin to him. And I was being slightly hyperbolic. But she didn't have to be best buds with him. I don't think she did what she did to Britain for masochistic reasons, I think she wanted a harder working, harder saving, thriftier nation. I am simply criticising her. I won't be celebrating her death, and I do feel a degree of compassion for her as she is lonely, but I cannot bring myself to be mourning her either.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher to be given State Funeral (#22)

by alexswanson on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 08:51:45 AM GMT

I always think what a bunch of nutters and idiots they must be if they can't understand the difference between living in democratic Britain under New Labour and living under a murderous dictator.

Oh, we understand the difference between democracy and dictatorship. Do you? Northern Monkey said above:

used the police in this country to wage civil war against her own fellow citizens in 1984

when what actually happened is that the police were used to stop striking miners using violence against others who wanted to work. This is what frightens people like me: socialists like yourselves clearly believe that whatever you do is right, even violence inflicted against those who disagree with you, who in your opinion do not have rights.

And let's be blunt: when I was at university during the early 1980's I came across plenty left-wing people who were more sympathetic to the Soviets than they were to the democratic West. The Labour Party itself was, otherwise it would not have embraced unilateral nuclear disarmament. When Reagan and Thatcher criticised Soviet human rights records we were told they were "warmongers", just as Labour condemned Churchil during the 1930's for warning against Nazism. Even today, left-wing people support and praise the anti-democratic Castro regime.

 

If you study the histories of Communism and Nazism, you find that totalitarian regimes don't spring into being fully formed. They start out  mild and gradually get worse, as the powers they accumulate enable them to suppress opposition and hence accumulate more. Labour hasn't gone far down that road - though it's gone further than it should - but I don't believe it's because you're reluctant to do so, it's because the British people wouldn't stand for it, just as ultimately they would not stand for the abuse of trade union power during the 1970's and 1980's.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher to be given State Funeral (#24)

by e10rifles on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 10:00:34 AM GMT

when what actually happened is that the police were used to stop striking miners using violence against others who wanted to work

Is that honestly what they used to tell you at Yougn Conservative events?

Did they also invite the tooth fairy as a guest speaker and put forward Father Christmas as a Parliamentary candidate?


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher to be given State Funeral (#28)

by alexswanson on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:29:28 AM GMT

Is there an actual argument hidden away in this comment or is it the old left-wing standby, if you haven't got anything else to say resort to abuse?


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher to be given State Funeral (#29)

by Free Radical on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:39:24 AM GMT

E10rifles can speak for themselves of course, but I think it is worth noting that the state and the media were used in a concerted way to break the NUM strike. I met miners who had been taken off the motorway by police hundreds of miles from their destination, intimidated, and turned back. Freedom of movement was suspended. The media were used in a highly partisan way. Miners were sometimes prevented from walking down the streets of their own village. Judges sat in the middle of the night to issue injunctions to keep coal lorries moving. Traffic lights were switched to green all the way to keep coal moving. Soldiers were used in police uniform. Vast amounts of money were paid in overtime to police. Miners' benefits were stopped in an attempt to starve them back to work. To me it was a revelation to see the state working in a coordinated way, suspending most of the normal rules of civil society, when the establishment perceived itself to be under attack.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher to be given State Funeral (#32)

by alexswanson on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:57:01 AM GMT

"intimidated"

As opposed to mass picketing, which presumably wasn't intimidation?

"The media were used in a highly partisan way"

Are you seriously suggesting the miners leaders like Arthur Scargill couldn't get their views known, that  the trade unions couldn't get this sort of thing publicised if it had really been happening and really been serious? Were newspapers like the Guardian and the Mirror - let alone the BBC - really suppressing stuff like this in order to help the Thatcher government? Come off it!

I can still remember Neil Kinnock's famous speech when he refused to support the police in enforcing the rule of law against violent picketing. The idea that he would have been unwilling to publicise govt abuses, or that he wouldn't have been able to get his message out, is laughable.

 

I know of stuff that the media really did suppress during the 1980's - and is still suppressing - and it wasn't for the benefit of Margaret Thatcher, I can assure you.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher to be given State Funeral (#36)

by e10rifles on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:30:50 PM GMT

Were newspapers like the Guardian and the Mirror - let alone the BBC - really suppressing stuff like this in order to help the Thatcher government? Come off it!

Perhaps you should read Roy Greenslade's retractment of and apology for the allegations printed by the Mirror about the NUM being sponsored by Gaddafi. So, in summary, yes.

Far more pickets were injured by police than police/scabs were injured by pickets. Surprisingly though, they didn't get quite the same media attention...

The leadership of the Labour Party at the time was a bloody disgrace, by the way. Meacher in particular will never be forgiven.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher to be given State Funeral (#38)

by alexswanson on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:48:04 PM GMT

Far more pickets were injured by police than police/scabs were injured by pickets. Surprisingly though, they didn't get quite the same media attention...

 

Of course, they were violent thugs.

 Let's get something clear: threatening, and even more so, committing violence is wrong and illegal. It's illegal and wrong down the pub on a Friday night, and it's illegal and wrong on a picket line.

 

You socialists must understand: you do not have the right to commit violence against people you disagree with. We live in a democracy. That is not how it works.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher to be given State Funeral (#46)

by e10rifles on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:31:55 PM GMT

You clearly can't or won't read. I don't see any socialists here defending the use of violence. Again, I remind you: the largest group of victims of the violence at the time were striking miners and fellow pickets. As you say, violence is wrong, but particularly so when the perpetrators are our police force, paid from our taxes, being deployed for political reasons against those amongst us who are lawfully picketing.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher to be given State Funeral (#37)

by Free Radical on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:34:46 PM GMT

There was a notable shift in the BBC's presentation of current events during the miners strike - to many it appeared to be more or less a government mouthpiece during that period.

It was really only the Mirror and the Guardian who displayed any real support for the NUM, despite quite high levels of public sympathy.

Scargill made mistakes of course, and could have been more politically skillful in his approach, in terms of building alliances and keeping the union together. Nevertheless his predictions were borne out by the events that followed. It was also clear that the government had set out to break the NUM as part of a strategy to weaken all of organised labour. Now as a result we import coal and are reliant on Russian gas and Middle Eastern oil.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher to be given State Funeral (#39)

by alexswanson on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:58:04 PM GMT

It was also clear that the government had set out to break the NUM as part of a strategy to weaken all of organised labour

 

This is just paranoia.

The NUM had made it clear for years that it was prepared to shut down the country whenever it felt like it. It tried with some success during the winter of 1973-74, and the people of this country put up with it and still voted Labour in 1974.

By 1984 the people of this country had got wise, and the government understood what it was dealing with, and prepared and behaved accordingly. The NUM set itself up as superior to democracy, and lost, as eventually it had to lose. The Labour leadership of the time also understood this, that's why their support was so lukewarm.

And the reason we import coal and gas now is simply that it's cheaper. Don't you think - especially since we've had Labour in power for eleven years - that if British coal was economic then someone would have started digging it  out again? They haven't, because it's not worth it.

 

My great grandfather was a coal miner in Fife. He died young because he was gassed in a mining accident. They gave him a medal, but they couldn't give him a new set of lungs. I personally absolutely understand the emotional support many people have for the miners and their communities, but sympathy is one thing, condoning violence and blackmail is another. The NUM deserved everything they got.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher to be given State Funeral (#43)

by Free Radical on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:19:53 PM GMT

"the government understood what it was dealing with, and prepared and behaved accordingly"

I think you prove my point really, though you shove all the blame on the NUM.

You also say that "the people of this country had got wise", though, as I recall, opinion polls showed a majority in support of the miners despite overwhelmingly hostile media.

I think concern about the government's treatment of the miners even extended to Her Majesty...

As to the economics of coal, as I'm sure you are aware, once the mines had been closed the costs of sinking new mines would be much more expensive than continued production would have been.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher to be given State Funeral (#59)

by London Lad on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 07:46:13 PM GMT

I find your flippant attitude to violence meted out by striking miners a bit obnoxious.

I wonder what the family of David Wilkie would feel about your comments - but perhaps you think that they dont matter, they might be Young Conservatives.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher to be given State Funeral (#60)

by e10rifles on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 11:28:12 AM GMT

I find your ignorance of all those who died or were injured on the picket line a bit obnoxious. There were several more of them, but perhaps they don't matter because they didn't vote Conservative?


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher to be given State Funeral (#31)

by jkitleft on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:47:36 AM GMT

I have caught you out on this before. I will not have you say that unilateral disarmament was supported by Stalinist sympathisers. I have already told you how Michael Foot had been condemning the Soviets for nearly 4 decades. I'm a multilaterist btw.

Secondly, who was the party who supported Churchill becoming PM? Labour. Who had been condemning fascism in Germany and Spain? Labour.

You're right in some aspects. Yes some left-wingers do praise Castro, but I have called hima tyrant repeatedly. Yes the trade unions had too much power. But the weakness of the unions today symbolises a very British sickness-the tyranny of wealth and the hegemony of money.

But, I can't trust you when you say that certain organisations have certain biases. Your main reason for the BBC being left-wing is that they didn't condemn the handgun ban. But if they had turned into a Fox News style organisation, and been anti-gun control, they would've been certainly right-wing. They remained neutral. That is what they are supposed to do.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher to be given State Funeral (#40)

by alexswanson on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:11:24 PM GMT

Your main reason for the BBC being left-wing is that they didn't condemn the handgun ban.

 

Actually, it's not, although they do not ever in their reporting represent the people or the case against it, even though often reporting the opinions of people who favour it. I have a formal complaint in to them right now on that. I would have no problem with them being neutral. My problem is that they always report one side but not the other. I could quote you a recent email from the BBC admitting that they'd done just that in a web page, and informing me of a correction they'd made following my pointing it out.

 

My main complaint about the BBC is their past and present representation of the USSR, which is mild to the point of being deceptive. For example, it is a fact that the Soviet Army was deliberately organised, trained,  equipped, and indoctrinated for the "liberation" of Western Europe - but you would never have guessed this from the BBC.

 

Churchill himself in his memoirs tells of how Labour people called him a "warmonger" during the 1930's. Military action to stop Hitler when he could easily have been stopped was opposed by the Left in Britain and France. All this is a matter of record.

 

The point about unilateral disarmament is simple:  nobody who understood the Soviet regime would have dreamed of supporting it. If Foot, or anybody else in the Labour Party, ever attacked Soviet human rights records during the Cold War I for one missed it. How many times did we hear about the Sharpeville Massacre in the press during the 1980's? How many times about Steve Biko? And how many times about Novocherkassk or Stepan Bandera? Your suggestion that the Left wasn't pro-Soviet is just rubbish, like looking for a Nazi in 1946 Germany - "Never liked them", yeah right.

 

 


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher to be given State Funeral (#44)

by Free Radical on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:28:01 PM GMT

"Churchill himself in his memoirs tells of how Labour people called him a "warmonger" during the 1930's. Military action to stop Hitler when he could easily have been stopped was opposed by the Left in Britain and France. All this is a matter of record."

First of all, it was not only the left that was involved in "appeasement" of Hitler, but whole swathes of the political establishment. Some, like the Beaverbrook press were supportive of the Nazis. Around half of the cabinet were apparently ready to do a deal with Hitler when war broke out.

Secondly you will no doubt recall that Churchill formed an alliance with the Soviet Union in order to defeat Naziism, so your citing of Churchill in the context of your anti-Soviet argument is somewhat muddled.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher to be given State Funeral (#49)

by snowflake5 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:37:34 PM GMT

The left wasn't involved at all in the appeasement of Hitler. All Labour MPs voted against the Munich agreement. Churchill, supposedly the great opposer of Hitler, didn't have the guts to vote against it, he abstained. But he wrote entertaining memoirs after the event portraying him in a better light.

Note that all 400 off Tory MPs voted for Munich. I think that's part of the reason Labour won in 1945. The electorate were clearing the hated appeasers out of parliament...


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher to be given State Funeral (#47)

by jkitleft on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:45:43 PM GMT

"Men have had their freedom taken
from them and worse [by Stalin], merely for expressing
their opinions and for being suspected of holding
certain opinions, in Poland and many other parts of
Eastern Europe… We have a conception of political
liberty which our friends in Russia have unhappily not
been blessed with."

"Some are still gulled by the monstrous delusion that the
Russians are the friends, not the enemies, of
democratic Socialism… If they prefer the world view of
the Communist Party, let them clear out and no longer
seek cover in our ranks."
 
And when people criticsied him and Orwell for their writings about the Soviets, he said:
"We are glad to offer him a facility for criticising the policy of the government– a facility which is denied to Socialists in all the countries of Eastern Europe."

What's more, I've pointed this out before to you.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher to be given State Funeral (#34)

by alexhilton on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:12:44 PM GMT

You were a student in the 80s?

Wasn't that when ultra-thatcherite young conservatives were calling for Nelson Mandela to be hanged?


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher to be given State Funeral (#41)

by alexswanson on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:17:07 PM GMT

Yep (actually, it was the Federation of Conservative Students, not the Young Conservatives, which didn't do that sort of thing), around the same time that not-at-all-sympathetic-to-the-Soviets Labour MPs were taken on a  tour of Afghanistan as guests of the Soviet puppet regime. 

It was also when I spent a lot of my spare time training to defend democracy. What were you doing?


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher to be given State Funeral (#45)

by Stuart on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:31:45 PM GMT

And this from a person that wants to:

"repeal all the laws that stop people owning or carrying knifes" and "repeal the handgun ban".

Exactly what kind of training were you up to?


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher to be given State Funeral (#48)

by snowflake5 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:33:16 PM GMT

Sorry Alexswanson - you really are a frothing, rolling-eyed Tory loon if you sincerely believe that the Labour government is "totalitarian" and a "dictatorship". Barking!

I suppose being out of power for a while does funny things to your brain as desperation and frustration take over and you have to resort to ever more exaggerated accusations against teh government to get people to vote for you and the difference between fantasy and reality blurs. 

Go and have a lie down, m'dear.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher to be given State Funeral (#23)

by alexswanson on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 08:54:56 AM GMT

Labour on the other hand is civilised and compassionate and big enough not to hold grudges (at least most of us are like this!).

 

It always astounds me that Labour people apparenty belive this sort of rubbish. You really ought to read left-wing opinion columns and think about how you would react if they were aimed at you.

I know people who've been at the receiving end of Labour bigotry and they hate you. And rightly.

 


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher to be given State Funeral (#11)

by aneurin on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 08:48:18 PM GMT

So the "community breakdown" which Thatcher "exacerbated" has now led to "higher crime rates". Err, isn't the party line supposed to be that crime is falling? Certainly the Home Office seems to thinks so. (You can check on
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/crime-statistics/?view=Standard if you like.) They seem to think that "crime has fallen by 42% since 1995". So all this inequality and social breakdown has actually led to lower crime ... Oh hang on that won't do will it ... err

Look, to face the electorate and blame Thatcher for the problems currently facing the country, simply won't do. Apart from potential of tangling oneself up in all sorts of contradictions, it's rather like saying the country has been run by a bunch of incompetents for the past eleven years who weren't capable of doing anything about it, which isn't quite the message the Party should be trying to get across. We have moved on. It is not the 1980s anymore, and there is little point in re-fighting the battles of old. That's the mistake the Tories made in the ten years or so after 1997. If the Party now makes that same error it will suffer the same consequences.

Whether or not Thatcher gets a state funeral shouldn't really matter to anyone.


Re: Thatcher to be given State Funeral (#13)

by jkitleft on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:33:07 PM GMT

Sorry, choice of words was bad. It led to higher crime rates in the '80's and '90's.


Look "Nye", the long term effects of Thatcher cannot be underestimated.


The reason why this matters is because other nation changing PM's have not got state funerals (like Attlee), and that it just seems like a right-wing cause to say, that her 'greatness' is akin to defeating fascism.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher to be given State Funeral (#52)

by aneurin on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 12:46:37 AM GMT

Actually British crime rates began increasing in 1954 at a fairly steady rate until they peaked in 1992 and have been falling ever since. There is no particular evidence that anything that Thatcher did or didn't do anything that had any effect on the long term trend.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher to be given State Funeral (#14)

by Googler on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:51:42 PM GMT

I'll just go to the movies.


Re: Thatcher to be given State Funeral (#18)

by Stuart on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 08:08:08 AM GMT

Everybody has their breaking point, their line in the sand if you will.  This I fear, is mine.  I've been a Party member all my life and found excuses to justify my remaining inside for all that time.  This is a slap in the face.  I do not believe that I can go out delivering leaflets for a Party that will honour a person who tried to destroy whole working class communities.

The worst thing is I know that this is gesture politics, that it will be a silent protest that will change nothing.  But, for me, I feel that I have to say enough is enough.  If the story is true and she is granted a state funeral, then Brown can come and deliver his own leaflets.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher to be given State Funeral (#15)

by Free Radical on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:01:15 PM GMT

I'm struggling to understand why some people think this is an important issue. Or is it just another excuse to snipe at Brown?


Re: Thatcher to be given State Funeral (#19)

by treborc on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 08:13:31 AM GMT

State funeral, take her to coal mine open up pit face tip her down close up mine stick a statue of a miner on top fitting end to an old cow.


Re: Thatcher to be given State Funeral (#25)

by HOWLERMONKEY on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 10:11:47 AM GMT

The Mail screemer says
"Lady Thatcher to be honoured with State funeral, but Palace fears there might not be enough troops to line streets of London"

The use of troops is to stop people from giving her a Mussolini style send off.


 


Re: Thatcher to be given State Funeral (#26)

by Proudvotinglabour on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 10:31:18 AM GMT

Oh grow up.

It is a funeral for a person, no matter how much you disagreed with her, that was Prime Minister for 11 years and won three general elections. 

She will be remembered fondly, in her death, by many people who hated her then and dislike her now.  Many of these people voted Labour then and have voted Labour since, and may even vote Labour next time.

And you lot want to vent your spleen and get your revenge and look like a baying mob having parties to celebrate the death of an old woman.  It is this sort of vindictive nonsense that makes ordinary people look at political activists and wonder if they live in the same world.


Re: Thatcher to be given State Funeral (#27)

by e10rifles on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:23:57 AM GMT

I agree with what the poster above said about noisy protests to disrupt the funeral being counter productive and portraying our movement in a negative light.

However, if this does go ahead I would like to see a dignified, silent protest near/alongside the funeral route with banners reminding everyone of those who died, were made homeless, were made unemployed, lost their communities, were victims of crime or are ill because of an underfunded health service under the most evil and inhuman political regime in this country since the introduction of universal suffrage.


Re: Thatcher to be given State Funeral (#30)

by alexswanson on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:42:51 AM GMT

evil and inhuman political regime

 

Somehow I sense there's little point in arguing with you, but following policies that don't usher in a socialist workers paradise doesn't in fact make someone evil or inhuman. Quite the contrary.

What portrays your movement in a negative light is not protests quiet or otherwise, it's the malicious and intolerant way Labour governments treat people they don't like, which these days seems to be most of us.

Why do you think that Labour's poll ratings are so low, after eleven years in power? It's because instead of serving the people, this government has turned out to be made up of arrogant, incompetent, wasteful control freaks, that's why. It's the sort of government that brought this country literally to the edge of collapse in 1979, and which Thatcher - for all her faults - saved us from, with the support of the country at large which recognised that what she was doing might have been painful, but was necessary. When Cameron is elected, his government is going to have to do painful things as well, and no doubt in twenty of thirty years someone (perhaps even you) will be complaining on this blog about him too, just because she had, and Cameron will have to have, the courage and the sense not to buy into the ideological delusions which lead to the problems in the first place.

 

 


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher to be given State Funeral (#33)

by jkitleft on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:59:31 AM GMT

Again, even during the Thatcher years, a majority of people voted for parties who were commited to tax and spend policies. Had the left been more united, she would've been gone, if she had got to power in the first place.

Also, I can't believe that Taxpayers Alliance obsession with 'waste'. When Cameron talks of abolishing beaurocracy, but not services, it's crock. I remember their equivalent of the 'little list', and the TPA's claims can easily be dismissed about 'non-jobs'. They did a top 10 list of the most pointless jobs. Here they are:


Here's its No 1 non-job: assistant director, wellbeing and community services. Hampshire county council, salary, up to £85,000. What's the job? Complete charge of a budget of £170m, delivering care services to 10,000 adults, the old, disabled and frail across all of Hampshire - which is, incidentally, Tory-controlled. They may think "wellbeing" sounds silly, but it is David Cameron's favourite word. Is £85,000 too much? I don't know in a world where Lord Browne has just left BP with £63m legally purloined from a public company holding all our pension funds.


No 2: programme manager for national Supporting People value improvement programme, Department of Communities and Local Government, salary £39,728-£53,144. This is an awful mouthful of a title, but what does it do? Supporting People is one the government's best programmes, doing what the Tories like - funding a host of charities, such as Homeless Link, that help 1.2 million people to live independently. They are old or mentally ill homeless people who risk falling back on to the streets. This job does what taxpayers ought to want - checks best value for money.


Job No 8 has a deliberately funny title: Cardboard Citizens managing director, £45,000. This Arts Council-funded charity for homeless people (living in cardboard) helps 2,000 people a year get back into normal life. It puts on plays with homeless actors (Michael Billington gave four stars to its Timon in the Royal Shakespeare Company's Complete Works festival at Stratford). It uses theatre to help people get jobs - 400 last year - with interview training and career guidance. It's brilliant - but is it essential? That depends if you want to strip public funding to nothing but the barest bones.

"Diversity" is the alliance's worst word. But even here, it gets it badly wrong.

Non-job No 10 is diversity and inclusion manager, Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, salary £38,000. This job sees that disabled people can take public exams. Would the alliance not want deaf children to lip-read French oral and blind children not to take exams in Braille? Would it deny exams to children in hospital?


Here are the other six on the list. No 3 is group manager, assessment and care management, Scottish Borders council, up to £42,024 - self-explanatory manager of care services in this Tory council. What on earth is non-job about that?


No 4: strategic director, children and young people, Halton council, £100,000. This job runs all schools, social services and health for children. ("Strategic" signifies that it has cut the number of council directors from six to four.)


No 5: civil resilience manager, Stockport council, £39,132. Every council by law has to have someone in charge of emergency planning.


No 6: diversity programme manager, Redbridge council (Tory-controlled), £39,126. This job eases the way for the area's 48% ethnic minorities and 17 languages, while making buildings and events usable by the disabled.


No 7: strategic leader, partnerships and participation, Leeds city council, £60,000. This coordinates the work of doctors, schools and social workers, to stop more Climbie calamities.


No 9: mobile youth provision and rapid response manager, Islington council, £35,592-£40,578. This post heads a team of youth workers to go where gangs of kids hang about, offering better activities, saving police time, avoiding asbos, responding to what neighbourhoods say they need most. Good idea.


Are any of these non-jobs, then? That depends on your priorities and what services you think the state should provide. But most of them are so utterly essential that it is breathtaking to think Tory spokesmen, or even the Tory press, can imagine there should be no directors of children's services and no managers to run social services for old people.


But if tax cuts are a priority, it's necessary to rubbish the entire public sector as politically correct jobsworths. Call every manager a bureaucrat. Never spell out what the services do, simply mock their titles.

What happened when we cut 'waste'? We cut jobs out of the civil service. The civil service trade unions warned us that chaos would ensue. Cameron dismissed this. Then the two discs containing the details of 25 million people were lost.

I'll continue the list of services the Tories would cut later. But we all know what happens with a Tory council. They cut the most essential services. They cut out social care, and childcare, for who is going to fight for these vunerable people? They make everyone's lives steadily worse. Then they cut council tax, and say: "Look how clever we are."


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher to be given State Funeral (#58)

by jkitleft on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:39:03 PM GMT

Sorry forgot to mention, this was from a Toynbee article, I meant to mention it. This article was quoted from "Here's its no.1 non-job" to "simply mock their titles".


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher to be given State Funeral (#35)

by e10rifles on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:18:41 PM GMT

What portrays your movement in a negative light is not protests quiet or otherwise, it's the malicious and intolerant way Labour governments treat people they don't like, which these days seems to be most of us.

Another goon who can't tell the difference between the labour movement and this Labour Government.

Why do you think that Labour's poll ratings are so low, after eleven years in power?

See all the other threads on Labourhome for discussion of this question. Suffice to say that Thatcher's solution for the problems on the 70s was to intensify the system which created them: capitalism.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher to be given State Funeral (#42)

by alexswanson on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:19:00 PM GMT

Another goon who can't tell the difference between the labour movement and this Labour Government

 

Oh I know there's a difference. I read all the complaints here about how the govt isn't nasty enough.

 


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher to be given State Funeral (#50)

by sloanreg on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 07:39:51 PM GMT

I was shocked to hear about this. The Guardian today indicated it's support, which surprised me. My initial reaction was to resign as a member of the Labour Party. Why is there no more fuss? My wife and I had the greatest problem with looking at the TV when she was on. I am a retired GP. Fundholding was a nightmare. What has happened to the NHS since 1997 is fabulous and something to be proud of. I could go on!!


Re: Thatcher to be given State Funeral (#51)

by Free Radical on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 10:18:59 PM GMT

I certainly hope noone resigns from the Party over this. You are right that the improvements to the NHS since 1997 are fabulous and we should all shout it loud and clear.

Personally I have been critical about a number of aspects of government policy, but the choice at the next election will be between a Labour and a Conservative government, and Labour, for all its faults, will serve the interests of the vast majority of people far better than the Tories. It's the difference that we will vote for, and it's what has kept me in the party.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher to be given State Funeral (#54)

by Radford Mann on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:18:17 AM GMT

No, no, no, no. Absolutely not. Rather than discussing giving a state funeral to an evil woman we ought to be wondering if it's too late to have heri ndicted for war crimes.


Re: Thatcher to be given State Funeral (#55)

by AngryVoter on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:50:27 AM GMT

Well, the thing is... much like Churchill before her, and Palmerston before him they're all towering Prime-ministerial figures whom history will always remember and almost certainly in a positive light in the history books. [Aside from some lunatics on the fringes of the spectrum who wish to change history to be more "accurate" according to their world views of the present, rather than going through the actual past with a fine tooth comb]

She was the first female PM, which I think says enough about her achievements for a start, she was one of the few female MPs in a highly dominated [and indeed, still dominated] male world. She got far enough to become leader of the Conservatives and then onwards to become leader of this country [oddly, a woman in the supposedly equallity-loving Labour has never held the top job, why the heck is that anyway?]

  She managed to ram a very big spike into the "post-empire" guilt trip and the country's slow slide into economic oblivion with the unprofitable state-owned industries.

History will remember her in a more positive light once all of those who "suffered" during her reign are gone and stopped moaning about events 20-30 years ago. Of whom, supposedly, have all found meaningful employment since then if the statistics are to be beleived, I certainly don't know any around here who didn't find a job after Thatcher's culling of the near-dead pits anyway.

[Nearly none of whom are actually on this website bar one notable exception who belives what she did, ultimately, was necessary for the country.]

I also note, aside from Glasgow [which relied far too heavily on a single, highly unprofitable industry] many places have recovered as was expected during her economic revolution. The problem many people always seem not to get in regards to her is "These things take time and money."

Yes she's a divisive figure, largely from those on the left whom she crushed during her tenure, destroying the unions as a political bloc and debunking state-ownership to the point it continued to make Labour unelectable under Major's tenure for as long as they continued to maintain it was a good idea.

She saw off the liberty crushing Soviets, she helped liberate Eastern Europe and was one of the first western leaders to make a tour there, ensuring our goodwill with Eastern Europe, a holdover from the Second World War was maintained and her name is known world-wide.

Labour's greatest Legacy, Tony Blair, admits to being a fan and copied many of her styles and ideas for his New Labour revolution.

Like Marmite, you love her, or hate her. Personally on reflection she made mistakes, we can all accept that on both sides of the divide.

And you know what? It makes her human. We all make mistakes, me, you, Lib Dem, Tory, Labour.

Because of that, because of all of those achievments, good or ill, because she managed to change the political landscape of this country forever, I think she should have that state funeral.

She really is an exceptional figure.


Re: Thatcher to be given State Funeral (#56)

by e10rifles on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:39:47 AM GMT

Obviously I think you're barking mad, that goes without saying, but thanks for making it so clear what your politics really are.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher to be given State Funeral (#57)

by AngryVoter on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:28:04 PM GMT

Liberal economics, liberal "step-back" society and not telling people what to do in every aspect of their lives and generally supportive of not paying for unsustainable industries?


[ Parent ]

Thatcher to be given State Funeral | 59 comments (59 topical)