Margaret Thatcher, R.I.P.?

[TANGODANCER]

Wife said:

"Instead of all the hoo-ha, why can't they just have a private burial service for her and a commemerative service at Westminster Abbey for those that want to attend? "

Made sense to me.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

So it made for pretty depressing viewing this morning watching William Hague, a chap I've always quite liked, justifying huge public expense on giving Thatcher a-not-quite-state-funeral.

Yes, hearing him relate the cost to the rebate from the EU wasn't his finest moment, was it?

For me there's a much more simple point which is that we already own the carriages, emply the soldiers etc, so the vast majority of the extra cost is simply police and security - i.e. the cost of keeping those of us who work or live in central London safe when there's a public event on.

aye... but then there is no real obvious reason that her funeral should be a public event, is there?

I don't know - she was such a big figure in British and international politics, it would probably seem odd for there to be no public element to it. Given the interest in her, it seems like a natural ritual for the country to go through to mark the occasion, whatever it will mean to different people.

[thebish]

I don't know - she was such a big figure in British and international politics, it would probably seem odd for there to be no public element to it. Given the interest in her, it seems like a natural ritual for the country to go through to mark the occasion, whatever it will mean to different people.

i prefer Tango's missus's suggestion...

I don't know on what grounds or basis you would pick out one prime minister over another to merit full military honours or whatever the right description is... will we now have to do the same for Blair?? he was in for quite a while and he did the war thing - and he divides opinion...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I don't know - she was such a big figure in British and international politics, it would probably seem odd for there to be no public element to it. Given the interest in her, it seems like a natural ritual for the country to go through to mark the occasion, whatever it will mean to different people.

i prefer Tango's missus's suggestion...

I don't know on what grounds or basis you would pick out one prime minister over another to merit full military honours or whatever the right description is... will we now have to do the same for Blair?? he was in for quite a while and he did the war thing - and he divides opinion...

I have thought about the significance of 'the war thing'.

I suppose the difference in Thatcher's case is that the war was: (a) over British territory and the self determination of British citizens; (b) supported by the majority of British people both at the time and subsequently; and (c) it was clearly won.

[thebish]

I don't know - she was such a big figure in British and international politics, it would probably seem odd for there to be no public element to it. Given the interest in her, it seems like a natural ritual for the country to go through to mark the occasion, whatever it will mean to different people.

i prefer Tango's missus's suggestion...

I don't know on what grounds or basis you would pick out one prime minister over another to merit full military honours or whatever the right description is... will we now have to do the same for Blair?? he was in for quite a while and he did the war thing - and he divides opinion...

I have thought about the significance of 'the war thing'.

I suppose the difference in Thatcher's case is that the war was: (a) over British territory and the self determination of British citizens; (b) supported by the majority of British people both at the time and subsequently; and (c) it was clearly won.

you could posit any number of differences... but given there is no stated reason WHY we are affording Thatcher this honour - then it would be pointless to speculate... given that there are no written down criteria for affording a PM such an honour - then making up reasons about distinctions over wars they led us into on the hoof seems a bit arbitrary...

as I remember it - the majority of the British people supported the war in Iraq at the time... going on the demos against it as i did - it did not feel like we were in the majority - and the media cetainly did not portray us that way...

the fact that NOW everyone claims they always said it was a bad idea shouldn't blind us to the fact that - at the time of going to war ion Iraq - it was quite a popular move... those who opposed it were saddam-loving lunatics...


to offer such an honour to thatcher - and then not to blair - or to support one and not the other - would seem a bit partisan...

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I lied. I admit it, I'm back.
Thatcher herself manufactured the Falklands war in order to be re-elected. Before the Falklands she was as popular as shit on toast.
Blair got dragged into the war on turrer by the yanks, former comrades-in-arms of Thatcher,who would without doubt have launched herself wholeheartedly into conquering the fecking world. I still,by the way, think toppling Saddam was worth every second. So nerr.

[BWFC_Insane]

Paying for Thatcher's funeral with public money is the ultimate irony.......

[thebish]

Paying for Thatcher's funeral with public money is the ultimate irony.......

you mean like rain on your wedding day?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Paying for Thatcher's funeral with public money is the ultimate irony.......

I believe this point has been made. Lowest bidder and all that shite. In fact, I've decided to re-tender: I'm now down to one bunch of faggots, a single firelighter, and plenty of effort with a bit of twig spun between my own sweaty palms to ignite the spark.

[Worthy4England]

that were ruined by the no-safety-net brutal dismantling of the mining industry.

A question that often occurs to me in the context of these discussions is what people think would have been the best, fairest and least painful way to introduce a policy of non-subsidisation of loss-making in nationalised industries? Something one often hears is that the problem wasn't so much what was done, but the lack of compassion exhibited in the way it was done.

I think this is partially the key to it Mummy. Generally people will accept change and try and adapt but you've got to give them half a chance. So I'm not sure it's even about the fairest way to subsidise. Having made a decision that it was known was going to impact the manufactuting base (so rather than the subsidy question, we've made a decision that we know is going to decimate it), what was/should be done to minimise it's impact on the people working in those industries?

The answer to what was done, was largely nada.

Most of the nationalised industries and communities were not (I suspect) in Tory heartlands. Unemployment was running at over 10% (3.6m in the mid 80's). This also tended to be higher in inner city/manufacturing areas, again Labour voters typically over the years.

What is a 55 year old bloke who's been a skilled miner for 40 years supposed to transfer his "transferrable skills" to exactly when the jobs aren't there (or in my old fella's case 40 years as a tailors cutter) - the main sources of manufacturing employment in the area are all shutting due to cheap imports (largely) and your CV reads "Occupation - Miner"? The youngsters were at least coming out of school with some O-levels/GCSE's - a lot of the people that were impacted were too old to have many of them.

Unemployment doubled from 5% in 1979 to over 10% from Aug 1981 to Oct 1987. The view from the more left of centre (myself included) was that actually 1) She and her government didn't care about this - most of it wasn't in Tory heartland and 2) higher unemployment was a reasonable lever for wage restraint, which in turn should help cap inflation. My view hasn't changed that it was cynical and politically motivated, as well as economic.

On the other side - some folk did pretty well out of it and the "I'm alright Jack" attitude became fashionable - like all governments post war, you only need to be able to convnce 13m people to vote for you, to form a Government. The opposition parties in total have more of the vote. So what she generally focussed on, maintaining and improving where she thought she could win votes and generally not giving a flying fcuk about anywhere she didn't think she'd win votes. It was this, as much as anything else, that convinced me that PR in some form is a fairer way to run an election, even though it would produce more coalitions. In my opinion, it was a level of polarisation British politics hadn't seen before. I can't recall the same level of antipathy towards Ted Heath (for example), nor especially towards Major and Hague. I'm not noticing the same level of antipathy towards Cameron either to be honest, he wouldn't get my vote, but I'm not that against what they're trying to do in the face of a Global economic crisis, although I think they're wrong, I think they're trying to do it reasonably equitably and not half as vindictively as the Thatcher government.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

you could posit any number of differences... but given there is no stated reason WHY we are affording Thatcher this honour - then it would be pointless to speculate... given that there are no written down criteria for affording a PM such an honour - then making up reasons about distinctions over wars they led us into on the hoof seems a bit arbitrary...

as I remember it - the majority of the British people supported the war in Iraq at the time... going on the demos against it as i did - it did not feel like we were in the majority - and the media cetainly did not portray us that way...

the fact that NOW everyone claims they always said it was a bad idea shouldn't blind us to the fact that - at the time of going to war ion Iraq - it was quite a popular move... those who opposed it were saddam-loving lunatics...


to offer such an honour to thatcher - and then not to blair - or to support one and not the other - would seem a bit partisan...

Yes but the consensus now is that Blair was not truthful in making the case that people were supportive of.

Of course I realise there are no hard and fast rules - the above is just my attempt to explain why a public funeral with a military component 'feels' appropriate for Thatcher.

[thebish]

Of course I realise there are no hard and fast rules - the above is just my attempt to explain why a public funeral with a military component 'feels' appropriate for Thatcher.

i understand that... so - would you be supportive of a similar honour for Blair when he pops it?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

that were ruined by the no-safety-net brutal dismantling of the mining industry.

A question that often occurs to me in the context of these discussions is what people think would have been the best, fairest and least painful way to introduce a policy of non-subsidisation of loss-making in nationalised industries? Something one often hears is that the problem wasn't so much what was done, but the lack of compassion exhibited in the way it was done.

I think this is partially the key to it Mummy. Generally people will accept change and try and adapt but you've got to give them half a chance. So I'm not sure it's even about the fairest way to subsidise. Having made a decision that it was known was going to impact the manufactuting base (so rather than the subsidy question, we've made a decision that we know is going to decimate it), what was/should be done to minimise it's impact on the people working in those industries?

The answer to what was done, was largely nada.

Most of the nationalised industries and communities were not (I suspect) in Tory heartlands. Unemployment was running at over 10% (3.6m in the mid 80's). This also tended to be higher in inner city/manufacturing areas, again Labour voters typically over the years.

What is a 55 year old bloke who's been a skilled miner for 40 years supposed to transfer his "transferrable skills" to exactly when the jobs aren't there (or in my old fella's case 40 years as a tailors cutter) - the main sources of manufacturing employment in the area are all shutting due to cheap imports (largely) and your CV reads "Occupation - Miner"? The youngsters were at least coming out of school with some O-levels/GCSE's - a lot of the people that were impacted were too old to have many of them.

Unemployment doubled from 5% in 1979 to over 10% from Aug 1981 to Oct 1987. The view from the more left of centre (myself included) was that actually 1) She and her government didn't care about this - most of it wasn't in Tory heartland and 2) higher unemployment was a reasonable lever for wage restraint, which in turn should help cap inflation. My view hasn't changed that it was cynical and politically motivated, as well as economic.

On the other side - some folk did pretty well out of it and the "I'm alright Jack" attitude became fashionable - like all governments post war, you only need to be able to convnce 13m people to vote for you, to form a Government. The opposition parties in total have more of the vote. So what she generally focussed on, maintaining and improving where she thought she could win votes and generally not giving a flying fcuk about anywhere she didn't think she'd win votes. It was this, as much as anything else, that convinced me that PR in some form is a fairer way to run an election, even though it would produce more coalitions. In my opinion, it was a level of polarisation British politics hadn't seen before. I can't recall the same level of antipathy towards Ted Heath (for example), nor especially towards Major and Hague. I'm not noticing the same level of antipathy towards Cameron either to be honest, he wouldn't get my vote, but I'm not that against what they're trying to do in the face of a Global economic crisis, although I think they're wrong, I think they're trying to do it reasonably equitably and not half as vindictively as the Thatcher government.

I understand all of that - what I'm asking about are the sorts of things you feel could/should have been done?

(Also, the reason I restricted the hypthetical question to 'eradicating state subsidy' is that it's a more focused thought experiment.)

[Harry Genshaw]

I've no idea whether this was accurate or not, but I recall at the time of the strike it was claimed that the subsidies that were being given at that time to the nuclear industry, if given to the coal industry would enable coal to be issued free of charge to every household in Britiain and also give each household an amount of money (might have been £250).

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Of course I realise there are no hard and fast rules - the above is just my attempt to explain why a public funeral with a military component 'feels' appropriate for Thatcher.

i understand that... so - would you be supportive of a similar honour for Blair when he pops it?

To be honest, his work towards securing the Good Friday Agreement does make me think hard about it.

But history will probably judge that he took us into a foreign war in which our interests were not directly affected and did so on the basis an exaggerated case to the public and Parliament about the extent to which our own interests were at stake.

If that is the judgement, military honours would probably not feel appropriate.

[Worthy4England]

I don't know - she was such a big figure in British and international politics, it would probably seem odd for there to be no public element to it. Given the interest in her, it seems like a natural ritual for the country to go through to mark the occasion, whatever it will mean to different people.

i prefer Tango's missus's suggestion...

I don't know on what grounds or basis you would pick out one prime minister over another to merit full military honours or whatever the right description is... will we now have to do the same for Blair?? he was in for quite a while and he did the war thing - and he divides opinion...

I have thought about the significance of 'the war thing'.

I suppose the difference in Thatcher's case is that the war was: (a) over British territory and the self determination of British citizens; (b) supported by the majority of British people both at the time and subsequently; and (c) it was clearly won.

There were calls for John Nott to resign at the time as there was plenty of views that pointed to proposed cut-backs in the defence forces and especially within the navy and specifically HMS Endurance, which was our only South Atlantic presence (albeit fairly token - it was an icebreaker), as being a trigger point for the Argies to take a view we didn't care much about the Falklands any more. It only had a small crew of marines and scientists and a couple of helicopters, but was seen as a deterrent. This was taken seriously enough that Nott offered his resignation, although this wasn't accepted.

I agree once the invasion had taken place, the country certainly backed it.

One Private Eye cover at the time carried a bust of Thatcher with the inscription "They died to save her face".

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I've no idea whether this was accurate or not, but I recall at the time of the strike it was claimed that the subsidies that were being given at that time to the nuclear industry, if given to the coal industry would enable coal to be issued free of charge to every household in Britiain and also give each household an amount of money (might have been £250).

Whatever the truth of that claim, nuclear has a defence as well as energy application and besides, there is a difference between structual subsidies and investment with the hope/expectation of future benefits/profits.

[thebish]

I've no idea whether this was accurate or not, but I recall at the time of the strike it was claimed that the subsidies that were being given at that time to the nuclear industry, if given to the coal industry would enable coal to be issued free of charge to every household in Britiain and also give each household an amount of money (might have been £250).

Whatever the truth of that claim, nuclear has a defence as well as energy application and besides, there is a difference between structual subsidies and investment with the hope/expectation of future benefits/profits.

in what way do our nuclear power stations contribute to our defense capability? genuine question - this assertion surprises me...

[Bruce Rioja]

But as you are squarely middle class, you wouldn't have known anything about that

Well, I must be if a survey on the BBC website says so, eh?
And even if I were, I don't see how that would mean me not knowing anything about it.

Because everybody knows that the middle class prefer to peep through their nets when the working class are about. And if the beeb says you are, you must be

Blinds, Darling. Through the blinds

[bobo the clown]

I've no idea whether this was accurate or not, but I recall at the time of the strike it was claimed that the subsidies that were being given at that time to the nuclear industry, if given to the coal industry would enable coal to be issued free of charge to every household in Britiain and also give each household an amount of money (might have been £250).

Whatever the truth of that claim, nuclear has a defence as well as energy application and besides, there is a difference between structual subsidies and investment with the hope/expectation of future benefits/profits.

in what way do our nuclear power stations contribute to our defense capability? genuine question - this assertion surprises me...

Really ?

A by-product of nuclear generation is plutonium ... feedstock of a nuclear bomb.

Also enriched uranium goes toward the manufacture of the about and the depleated uramium is a mainstay of high-tech armaments.

This is why the West has been getting arsy about Iran's enrichment facility.