Is Celebrating Death Justifiable?

[Lokasenna]

As pretty much the whole world is aware, Mrs Thatcher died yesterday morning. Whilst it was inevitable that a figure who was so controversial in life should also cause controversy in death, I'll admit that I've been surprised at just how pronounced it has been.

I am by nature a very political person, and a lot of my friends consequently are politically interested: it was very noticeable that my facebook page yesterday was neatly divided into two camps, one of which was in grief and one of which was in jubilant mood. My comments were fairly non-commital at first: I recognised her as an important, if divisive figure. But as the day wore on, I began to find it increasingly ghoulish how certain groups were greeting the death of frail, demented old woman with almost seraphic joy - applause at the NUS conference, street parties in Brixton and Glasgow, the leader of the Durham Miners declaring it 'the happiest day of my life.'

Consequently, I ended up engaging in several FB debates on the subject, and was suprised at the manner in which several of my friends, who are intelligent and civilized people, were nevertheless declaring this behaviour as appropriate. I then, I must admit, I thought back to my reaction to the death of Hugo Chavez, and whilst I certainly did not crack open the champagne and take to dancing in the street over that, I must admit that I did express to several friends (in private, not in public) that 'my only regret was that he did not die swinging from a lamppost.' I would, however, argue that there was a world of difference between the situations of Chavez and Thatcher.

All this is a long preamble to asking the ethical question: is it ever justifiable to celebrate the death of someone? If it is, then to what extent? What factors affect whether or not it is justified? Obviously, we mustn't get drawn into discussing politics here - this must be a purely abstract/hypothetical discussion, but I am interested to hear views.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Well I strongly disagreed with her political views and a lot of the things she did and stood for, but I wasn’t celebrating her death yesterday. I don’t see a point to it, but I can understand why I suppose if someone was so personally affected so much. If I had lost my job because of her, lost my home, seen my whole community wiped out then I might have felt differently, I don’t know. Celebrating the death of someone just feels a bit odd and pointless to me though. Even in the most extreme situations. I feel more that I regret or disagree with a situation caused by it rather than celebrate the death of the person that caused it. If that makes sense.

[YesNo]

I am by nature a very political person, and a lot of my friends consequently are politically interested: it was very noticeable that my facebook page yesterday was neatly divided into two camps, one of which was in grief and one of which was in jubilant mood. My comments were fairly non-commital at first: I recognised her as an important, if divisive figure. But as the day wore on, I began to find it increasingly ghoulish how certain groups were greeting the death of frail, demented old woman with almost seraphic joy - applause at the NUS conference, street parties in Brixton and Glasgow, the leader of the Durham Miners declaring it 'the happiest day of my life.'


That does seem like an extreme reaction to someone's death. I do remember the crowds cheering when Osama bin Laden was reported to have been killed, but he was still active. I don't think she exercised any political influence anymore, but maybe she did.

[kev67]

I can't say I am surprised by it. Didn't Elvis Costello write a song called Tramp the Earth Down about celebrating her death? No other British politician was as much hated by so many British people, at least not in living memory. I didn't really like her much myself, but that was partly because she reminded me so much of a school headmistress, who was constantly telling us off. I remember when I was told she had resigned. That was a happy day. Still, although I don't expect people to pretend they didn't hate her or not to criticize her for her policies, people should behave with a bit more class. I can't really talk though, because I was jubilant when that daily irritant, Princess Di, bit the dust. Although she was a melodrama you could never escape, whether in the newspapers, on the television or on the clock radio when I woke up in the morning, I really should have been more grown up.

[Calidore]

The harm she did, she did while in office, to which she was elected three times before choosing to step down. People celebrating her death more than 20 years later simply calls attention to their inability to do anything when it would have mattered. Plus, crowing about nature's victory over an old woman just seems cowardly in the extreme.

[Emil Miller]

Read Pro Bono Publico by Emil Miller, it tells why she did what had to, repeat had to, be done.

[cafolini]

Ask the islanders of the Falklands what they thought. Ask Gadaffi & CO what they thought. And if your knowledge of history allows it, make an appointment with Alfred the Great, or Newton, or Queen Elizabeth to discuss the matter.

[Lokasenna]

I'm concious of the fact that this post is verging on to the political, which was not my intention - though I'm quire glad to hear that my friends on here are less jubilant than those on facebook. I'm involved in several debates with people who are arguing that they are justified in glorying in her death - and I must admit that some people are on the verge of losing a great deal of my respect.

So, are there any circumstances in which it is truly legitimate to celebrate the death of another human being?

[LitNetIsGreat]

So, are there any circumstances in which it is truly legitimate to celebrate the death of another human being?

I don't think so, as I said before, but I can understand why some people might feel so in extreme situations. By extreme situations I'm thinking of serious offenders, prisoners, murderers, rapists etc. Whether it is legitimate will depend upon the individual and the circumstances though surely?

[Calidore]

So, are there any circumstances in which it is truly legitimate to celebrate the death of another human being?

People who are actively engaged in evil, and whose death prevents or lessens further harm.

[cacian]

I think regardless of what she did she was a Prime Minister and on that title alone she is due her celebratory death and much of media coverage. Historically she was the first woman to make it into office and Westminster let's face it is a man's world. So in the eyes of etiquettes and what is seen ''right'' from the outside does not unfortunately take into account deeds on whether they were abominable or not.
Celebrating the fact that she died however is out of touch wrong and reporting it on TV is even more so because it shows how the media plays up to the notion of duality good and evil . This provokes ultimately thoughts and is belittling of the whole concept of the prime ministerial itself. The media never prises it presides and plays games to stir people into little causalities of their own confusion about what is going in the public life and the reality of it behind closed doors.
Something like this leaves little to the imagination because what public life media celebrities personalities and decorum is all about is a lot of noise much ado and nothing much about to the foundations of right and wrong.

[JBI]

well, if she has inspired such a response then it is deserved. One's merits will always be judged posthumously

[Volya]

I don't think the death of anybody can be celebrated. What can be celebrated in some cases is that justice has been done and that an evil influence has been removed from the world.

[cafolini]

Thatcher took England back to the strongly meritorious psychology that made the UK the strongest power. If you need witnesses, talk to Gallileo under Bellarmino, Brahe, Kepler and Halley. Study the period of UK history known as The Glorious Revolution. And Newton? Check The House of Coin. It was the first English or American style Federal Reserve. Explain why the pound is still the strongest coin in the world. And of course, we Americans of the USA have it that way. Personally, I also very much have it that way. We don't want it, we HAVE it.

[Shaman_Raman]

I don't think the death of anybody can be celebrated. What can be celebrated in some cases is that justice has been done and that an evil influence has been removed from the world.

I agree completely with this. I remember the crowds roaring in cheer to Bin Laden's death. Was he evil? Yes. Is the world better without his influence? I'd say so. But cheering about someone's death seems to be what Bin Laden's philosophy was focused on: "death to all infidels." So if we're above such a wrong morality, we ought to behave with more maturity. Justice has been served, let's move on.

[Ecurb]

I thought the celebrations over Osama's death (murder? assassination?) were unseemly. It's reasonable to feel relief about his death, or a solemn pride at having succeeded in whacking him, but, as Rilke wrote, "Der tod ist gross" (death is huge). "Ask not for whom the bell tolls...."

Celebrating Thatcher's death is obnoxious, whatever one's political bent.

[Lokasenna]

Well, the case of Bin Laden is a curious one - I know plenty of people who were overjoyed at his assassination. Whilst I'm minded to agree that the world is probably a better place without his presence, I would rather have seen him on trial in the Hague, answering for his crimes in a court of law.

[qimissung]

I agree, Lokasenna. Would that have been possible? Those men were like cops (in the U.S.), shoot first, ask questions later.

As to Ms. Thatcher, Calidore and Volya have aptly expressed my sentiments. I think the anger though shows how powerless people feel/felt.

I'm sure changes did need to be made, but there, it seems, as here, the middle class and working class are disregarded, and a country does that only to it's own peril.

[Volya]

I thought the celebrations over Obama's death (murder? assassination?) were unseemly.

...freudian slip? :lol:

[Emil Miller]

Well, the case of Bin Laden is a curious one - I know plenty of people who were overjoyed at his assassination. Whilst I'm minded to agree that the world is probably a better place without his presence, I would rather have seen him on trial in the Hague, answering for his crimes in a court of law.

If Bin Laden was indeed responsible for the WTC attack, the US had a duty to kill him. I don't think a European supra national court would have any right to try him.

[Ecurb]

...freudian slip? :lol:

Osama. Obama. Who can tell the difference?

[Paulclem]

I think celebrating someone's death is unseemly - particularly someone who addressed the country's needs according to her, and the Tory party's beliefs.

I have to qualify this this though. I was studying for my A levels when Thatcher got in. When I left college - before I eventually went to Uni - I, like millions of others, was without a job in an economy that had very few to offer. I was lucky. Through someone I knew I got a job after 9 months on the dole. I can't tell you how depressing it was then. I had lived at home for the years previous, and we were pretty poor. The policies passed by the govt then made things worse.

I come from the industrial North and saw first hand how things went. Whatever the economic sense and need for change, many working class folk were left without jobs with families to support. It wasn't just the miners: manufacturing industry went down the pan too. Here in the Midlands was the same. I remember watching the news night after night when they reported how many jobs had been lost in this region and that region. Depressing doesn't begin to explain it. Descriptions of walking to the DSS as it was called in the snow to try to see if your money will come before everything closes for Christmas is no joke. When you suddenly become reliant upon social security and your family is plunged into poverty because of deliberate Government policy, arguments about economic sense become irrelevant. Add to that the very vivid perception that the government didn't care and employed very unsympathetic staff to administer the money you were entitled to, and you get a vey palpable sense of grievance.This wasn't just in a few places, but in all the industrial cities of the North, Scotland and Wales. Percieving this as a class war was logical at the time.

Then the miners strike occurred. This was a real war orchestrated by both sides. I found miners to be grasping and quite disissive of other working folk, but the govt at the time were out to break the unions. The miners union was unpleasant and grasping, but in breaking it, they also affected their families and the communities and businesses that relied upon the pit communities. In Yorkshire these tended to cluster in small villages with no other industries. I used to see vans of police gathering on the main road near my house when I was off to work. These were police shipped in from other places to provoke and deal with the strikers. It was ugly. At the time, conscious of the class war aspect of Govt policy, I supported the miners. I've changed my mind since, and I think the Miner's union embodied all that was wrong with unionism at the time. The damage of those communities persists today though, and I fully understand the hatred for Thatcher that has persisted. My cousin bought a house in one of the pit communities affected a few years later. In the years of Yuppiedom and soaring house prices in the south, he was able to buy a very reasonable house for £3,000. A few miles down the road and a similar terraced house went for £29,000. It wasn't just the jobs but the whole of the local economies suffered.

In the end, she was a figurehead representing a party, and I think that's what the PM is for - to take the flak so that the party can extricate itself from the mythology around the leader. Exactly the same thing happened with Blair. It's not only tasteless and bad for her remaining family for this celebration of her death, but it demonstrates a certain political naivety. Things have changed since her term in office, but having said that, I can still relate to those times, and I fully understand the feelings in those communities.

In answer to Cafolini about the Falklands - the war very conveniantly boosted Thatcher's Government's ratings and they won the next election. A cynic might comment upon the sacrifice of British and Argentinian lives for a second term in office. Also the war solved nothing. It merely postponed a problem that might have been negotiated into some kind of settlement with Argentina over a period of time whilst we were in a positon of power instead of exercising a misplaced triumphalism that delayed the problem until today. Are we going to send another task force to the South Atlantic with the emergent economies of South America in a much stronger position? Unlikely.

[Ecurb]

If Bin Laden was indeed responsible for the WTC attack, the US had a duty to kill him. I don't think a European supra national court would have any right to try him.

It seems to me (from a moral perspective, without getting too political) that we can’t have it both ways. WE want a “war on terror” (which allows us to whack our enemies without trial), but we refuse to confer on our enemies the rights and privileges of soldiers (like the right to surrender without being shot). The U.S. may have had a “duty” to bring Osama to trial, but not to assassinate him. The principle of “imminent danger” fails to apply to Bin Laden. He was hiding out in Pakistan, and presented no danger whatsoever. Reports are conflicting, but some seem to show that he tried to surrender, and was unarmed, in which case there is no legal or moral precedent for killing him, whether he is an “enemy combatant” or a “criminal”. To use a military metaphor, we have lost the moral high ground, and are now terrorists ourselves (especially with our drones and torture chambers).

[*Classic*Charm*]

To me, celebrating death looks something like this: :beatdeadhorse5:

I fail to see the point, especially if the person no longer holds direct power over you.

The celebration of another's shortcomings (IE., a politician losing an election or being removed from office) is to send a message to that individual about your opinion of them/ their work. Celebrating death is essentially the same thing, only the person in question isn't there to receive the message. Seems redundant, no?

How is anyone served by celebrating the death of another?

[Delta40]

When folk don't go to the polling booth but have plenty to say about the hardships imposed on them by government, what else can you expect? Celebrating an ex leaders death only shows how they expect others to do the yard work for them.

[Paulclem]

To me, celebrating death looks something like this: :beatdeadhorse5:

I fail to see the point, especially if the person no longer holds direct power over you.

The celebration of another's shortcomings (IE., a politician losing an election or being removed from office) is to send a message to that individual about your opinion of them/ their work. Celebrating death is essentially the same thing, only the person in question isn't there to receive the message. Seems redundant, no?

How is anyone served by celebrating the death of another?

Agreed - but it is a measure of the negative effects on the commuities that persists.

The current political landscape has similaities to the 80s as well, so it is perhaps poignant at the moment.

[Varenne Rodin]

Celebrating anyone's death is hideous. We make people into caricatures for us to mock, but a human being is a human being.

[Emil Miller]

It seems to me (from a moral perspective, without getting too political) that we can’t have it both ways. WE want a “war on terror” (which allows us to whack our enemies without trial), but we refuse to confer on our enemies the rights and privileges of soldiers (like the right to surrender without being shot). The U.S. may have had a “duty” to bring Osama to trial, but not to assassinate him. The principle of “imminent danger” fails to apply to Bin Laden. He was hiding out in Pakistan, and presented no danger whatsoever. Reports are conflicting, but some seem to show that he tried to surrender, and was unarmed, in which case there is no legal or moral precedent for killing him, whether he is an “enemy combatant” or a “criminal”. To use a military metaphor, we have lost the moral high ground, and are now terrorists ourselves (especially with our drones and torture chambers).

It's a question of perspective: does one look at it from the position of a distant observer, or that of someone who was forced to jump to their death from the blazing buildings?

[prendrelemick]

In a way celebrating Thatchers death, is a celebration of her doctrine. It shows her ideas have prevailed.

If age old decency values, like care, community and compassion, are deemed to be worthless by a leader, That person can expect to reap the consequences.

Personally, I think celebrating a person's death is always wrong. HOWEVER, if a party seeks to gain political capital through it, the other side must be allowed to counter.

It's not as bad as - for instance - using the deaths of 6 children in a fire as a platform for welfare cuts.

[Emil Miller]

The current political landscape has similaities to the 80s as well, so it is perhaps poignant at the moment.

This is true, Mrs Thatcher inherited a bankrupt country in 1979 as did the current administration in 2010.

[Volya]

This is getting quite political...

[cacian]

This is getting quite political...

Hi there Volya :) Well Maggie is politics without it she would have never made to be who she was/is now.

You see what intrigues me the most is that why all this media attention about her life now that she is dead.
Why could not all this be done while she was alive? she would have at least watched it and thought about it.
been a good thing for her to watch and listen to what people thought and made of her. This would have allowed for time to reflect on her past and hopefully she would have learned and amended things in her head.

[YesNo]

I woke up thinking about the Wizard of Oz where the munchkins celebrated the death of the wicked witch and thought, "Hmmm, maybe no one made the connection?"

But apparently the British are way ahead of me:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMFjFoq6T9M


I know little about her except what I've read in this thread.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Any clarity on whether it is going to be a state funeral? I've heard rumours today that it is and will cost the tax payers around 10 million. If this is true...:flare:

[cacian]

Any clarity on whether it is going to be a state funeral? I've heard rumours today that it is and will cost the tax payers around 10 million. If this is true...:flare:

No it is not a state funeral.

[Emil Miller]

Any clarity on whether it is going to be a state funeral? I've heard rumours today that it is and will cost the tax payers around 10 million. If this is true...:flare:

No, it will be a funeral with full military honours but, according to the BBC yesterday, Mrs Thatcher made it known that she didn't want a state funeral.
Discounting Churchill's wartime premiership, she is considered by many, including myself as possibly the best PM in modern times, but that's not saying much when considering the others.

[Ecurb]

It's a question of perspective: does one look at it from the position of a distant observer, or that of someone who was forced to jump to their death from the blazing buildings?

Why should the "perspective" matter? It is true that we are all self-involved egoists, and we tend to object to crimes that make us suffer more than those that make other people suffer. However, the notion that we SHOULD be self-involved egoists and that our willingeness to torture or assassinate SHOULD be based on whether we are avenging wrongs against our own precious selves is ridiculous. I vaguely remember one legendary figure who, when being tortured to death, said, "Forgive them, my father, they know not what they do."

[Volya]

From what I'm aware the funeral is being paid for out of her own estate and by the government.

[*Classic*Charm*]

Agreed - but it is a measure of the negative effects on the commuities that persists.

The current political landscape has similaities to the 80s as well, so it is perhaps poignant at the moment.

Fair enough, but it serves no purpose in itself.

Given that similarity, it seems strange to me that people continue hatred for Mrs Thatcher, who implemented the policies for a purpose, but not the variety of PMs who have come and gone without correcting the lingering negative effects. Her policies may have had hugely detrimental effects for portions of the population but they aimed to serve a greater purpose and many believe it was successful. Do you think it's likely that the population will celebrate the deaths of the PMs who have come and gone since without rectifying the negative consequences of policies which were useful?

[prendrelemick]

We still burn an efigy of Guy Fawkes every year.

[Lokasenna]

We still burn an efigy of Guy Faulks every year.

...or the Pope, if you're a true bluff traditionalist...

We are getting a little too political again - I didn't particularly want us to debate the relative merits of Thatcher/Thatcherism, but rather the ethics of celebrating death!

[Emil Miller]

Why should the "perspective" matter? It is true that we are all self-involved egoists, and we tend to object to crimes that make us suffer more than those that make other people suffer. However, the notion that we SHOULD be self-involved egoists and that our willingeness to torture or assassinate SHOULD be based on whether we are avenging wrongs against our own precious selves is ridiculous. I vaguely remember one legendary figure who, when being tortured to death, said, "Forgive them, my father, they know not what they do."

Well since you have brought religion into it, I think a biblical qotation might be appropriate.

Deuteronomy 19:21 Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

Not that I am a great one for biblical quotations, as it is a book that seeks to be all things to all men and it's not
difficult to find an alternative to many of its nostrums.

[Paulclem]

Fair enough, but it serves no purpose in itself.

Given that similarity, it seems strange to me that people continue hatred for Mrs Thatcher, who implemented the policies for a purpose, but not the variety of PMs who have come and gone without correcting the lingering negative effects. Her policies may have had hugely detrimental effects for portions of the population but they aimed to serve a greater purpose and many believe it was successful. Do you think it's likely that the population will celebrate the deaths of the PMs who have come and gone since without rectifying the negative consequences of policies which were useful?

It's all down to how you interpret it. At the same time as the implementation of policies which made some people unemployed, others were cashing in on the sale of publicly owned assets like the rail network. If you were a winner at the time, no doubt you'd think Thatcher was the best thing since sliced bread. Her schoolmarmy manner was similarly applauded by some sections of society, whilst others - myself included - felt she had a horrible manner.

I think there may be people who would celebrate Tony Blair's death. He, like Thatcher, was in office for over two terms and, as the figurehead, took the flak for what was Labour policy on Iraq. He was hated by a lot of people, though it is a different section of society that fell out with him. As for other PMs - they didn't cause that perception of grievance with large sections as Thatcher and Blair did.

[Paulclem]

...or the Pope, if you're a true bluff traditionalist...

We are getting a little too political again - I didn't particularly want us to debate the relative merits of Thatcher/Thatcherism, but rather the ethics of celebrating death!

I think we've skirted it quite well through the medium of history. It was always going to be difficult with Thatcher on topic.

[Emil Miller]

As for other PMs - they didn't cause that perception of grievance with large sections as Thatcher and Blair did.

This is also true because they just let the rot go on until the IMF had to bail out the UK.

[Ecurb]

Well since you have brought religion into it, I think a biblical qotation might be appropriate.

Deuteronomy 19:21 Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

Not that I am a great one for biblical quotations, as it is a book that seeks to be all things to all men and it's not
difficult to find an alternative to many of its nostrums.

I wasn't "bringing religion into it" (other than in a very tangential way, by quoting a "legendary" figure -- I'm not personally religious). However, an "eye for an eye" clearly makes no distinction based on ego-centric "perspective". Under Roman law, the plaintiff in what we would now call a criminal trial was the injured party. If you murdered someone with no close relatives, there would be no "plaintiff", and thus no trial. Today, the plaintiff in criminal trials is the State (in the U.S., the "Crown" in the U.K.). WE have correctly determined that breaking the law is an offense against The State (which made the laws in the first place). Therefore a "perspective" based on the personal harm done to the victim SHOULD have no bearing on the prosecution of the criminal.

[cacian]

I think we've skirted it quite well through the medium of history. It was always going to be difficult with Thatcher on topic.

Well they do say it is not about how you start it is about the finish and her finish was not particularly celebratory. I think that deserves a pause or too.
To begin is to end on a high note that way people cherish the thought and the memory is long lasting.
Her end with politics was anything but commemorative and she had to live with that. You bring in as much as you get in and I think justice was served. I doubt many would cherish the thought let alone remember.

[liza]

"Watch your thoughts; they become words. Watch your words; they become actions. Watch your actions; they become habit. Watch your habits; they become character. Watch your character; it becomes your destiny.”
:):)

[cacian]

"Watch your thoughts; they become words. Watch your words; they become actions. Watch your actions; they become habit. Watch your habits; they become character. Watch your character; it becomes your destiny.”
:):)

And watch your destiny it becomes your life?! :)

[LitNetIsGreat]

Well I'm glad I've not got to get my wallet out for it. There would have been more than a tad of irony involved don't you think, if the state had foot the bill for such an anti-statist?

[Emil Miller]

Well I'm glad I've not got to get my wallet out for it. There would have been more than a tad of irony involved don't you think, if the state foot the bill for such an anti-statist?

Well another way of looking at it would be to say that she was a nationalist viz. anti federal Europe, and defender of the Falklands; in which case, the nation could well be called on to foot the bill. It's the other lot who are hell bent on destroying the nation state.

[cacian]

Well I'm glad I've not got to get my wallet out for it. There would have been more than a tad of irony involved don't you think, if the state had foot the bill for such an anti-statist?

The irony of it all is that if it were to be a state funeral you would have foot the bill regardless of how you feel. Call that democracy more like hypocrisy.

[TheFifthElement]

Well I'm glad I've not got to get my wallet out for it. There would have been more than a tad of irony involved don't you think, if the state had foot the bill for such an anti-statist?

Neely, the state is going to be footing a significant proportion of the bill. Full details are not known yet, but all that has been said is Thatcher's estate wil be making a 'contribution'. More here http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22077919

[LitNetIsGreat]

The irony of it all is that if it were to be a state funeral you would have foot the bill regardless of how you feel. Call that democracy more like hypocrisy.

Well said!


Neely, the state is going to be footing a significant proportion of the bill. Full details are not known yet, but all that has been said is Thatcher's estate wil be making a 'contribution'. More here http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22077919

Yes Mrs N has just informed me (I've been out all day). Total and utter joke. No money and suddenly 10 million from the state for someone who all but destroyed it and didn't believe it in. Hypocrisy indeed. Have to raid the disabled a little more.

[prendrelemick]

I hope they put it out to tender (the funeral) and sell tickets, and TV rights. Corporate packages available. They could also have sponsers - Coffin by tetrapak- that sort of thing, and turn a profit.

She would approve.

[Volya]

Total and utter joke. No money and suddenly 10 million from the state for someone who all but destroyed it and didn't believe it in. Hypocrisy indeed. Have to raid the disabled a little more.

Where did you get that figure from? And as this article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatcher/9984134/Lady-Thatchers-funeral-wishes-will-save-taxpayer-800000.) points out, it could easily be argued that the amount Margaret Thatcher did to help the country more than compensates for the funeral costs (I must add that this isn't my view, since I don't actually know a huge amount on what she did, this is just what one article is saying).

[LitNetIsGreat]

Where did you get that figure from? And as this article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatcher/9984134/Lady-Thatchers-funeral-wishes-will-save-taxpayer-800000.) points out, it could easily be argued that the amount Margaret Thatcher did to help the country more than compensates for the funeral costs (I must add that this isn't my view, since I don't actually know a huge amount on what she did, this is just what one article is saying).

You're kidding right? Trolling or something?

Mrs N mentioned it, read it or seen it somewhere I don't know.

[*Classic*Charm*]

Well said!



Yes Mrs N has just informed me (I've been out all day). Total and utter joke. No money and suddenly 10 million from the state for someone who all but destroyed it and didn't believe it in. Hypocrisy indeed. Have to raid the disabled a little more.

Given the population of GB is ~62 million people, your part of the bill would be roughly 16p. I'm sure you could find someone who's willing to pay you back :ihih:



I'm sorry, that wasn't very nice. I know that's really not the point.

[Emil Miller]

You're kidding right? Trolling or something?

Mrs N mentioned it, read it or seen it somewhere I don't know.

I have just been to my local Sainsbury's convenience store and the figure of £10 million is the headline of the Daily Mirror. Enough said.

[Volya]

You're kidding right? Trolling or something?


No? What gave you that idea?

[LitNetIsGreat]

I have just been to my local Sainsbury's convenience store and the figure of £10 million is the headline of the Daily Mirror. Enough said.

Yes she will have probably read it in that.

I've just seen on the news that the exact figure of state expenditure is being kept a close secret until after the funeral. It's a total joke that it is costing us anything, and not a little ironic as I say, that such a firm believer in the private sector is costing the state any money at all. A final little twist of the knife.

Some funny things I've read or seen this week about her that I didn't know:

• She supported white rule and the apartheid in South Africa and called Nelson Mandela a ‘terrorist’
• Believed in the Berlin wall and did not want Germany re-united
• Believed that writers should get a proper job
• Commented that if a man over 25 is still using public transport then he is a failure!

[OrphanPip]

Our current PM, Stephen Harper, also supported apartheid in South Africa during the 80's, it was a popular position of the right-wing at the time.

[The Atheist]

How is anyone served by celebrating the death of another?

The celebration doesn't serve anyone, but I look forward to celebrating the death of Robert Mugabe, for one. Once he's gone, there might be a chance of change in Zimbabwe that does not exist while he lives.

Some people are so evil that I have no compunction celebrating their deaths.

[prendrelemick]

I'm biting my metaphorical tongue after all that utter bo11ox in The House yesterday. (By the way neely, MPs could claim over £3000 each in travel expences to attend.)

I'm not into celebrating the death of anybody, but neither am I into these sugared eulogies. Yesterday we saw History being kidnapped and rewritten. When I die, I'd like an honest appraisal please, as Oliver Cromwell said "Warts and all"




Edit: just seen Glenda Jackson's "tribute" - that's more like it!

[JuniperWoolf]

Our current PM, Stephen Harper, also supported apartheid in South Africa during the 80's, it was a popular position of the right-wing at the time.

Speaking of Harper, he actually said something that I liked (I know, how weird is that?) when Osama was killed. He said that Canadians recieve the news with "somber satisfaction."

That's it, right there. We should conduct ourselves with "somber satisfaction" when people who we believe to have caused harm die, not open jubilation. The only exception I can think of where celebration is warrented is when their death leads to people actually being liberated.

Edit: Also, regarding this specific example, I don't have an opinion on Thatcher's death since I thought she was dead already. She was influential decades ago, her death doesn't affect anything. I think that most people are faking their feelings about her death, the "sympathizers" certainly, but also the celebrants. Thatcher isn't a person who died, she's a symbol of what they either like or don't like, and their actions in light of her death are a reflection of their opinion. So, it's not so much "ghoulish" to me as it is self-stroking, in a completely pointless and admittedly quite tasteless way.

[Emil Miller]

The irony of it all is that if it were to be a state funeral you would have foot the bill regardless of how you feel. Call that democracy more like hypocrisy.


Well said!


I never thought I would see the day.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I'm biting my metaphorical tongue after all that utter bo11ox in The House yesterday. (By the way neely, MPs could claim over £3000 each in travel expences to attend.)

I'm not into celebrating the death of anybody, but neither am I into these sugared eulogies. Yesterday we saw History being kidnapped and rewritten. When I die, I'd like an honest appraisal please, as Oliver Cromwell said "Warts and all"


Edit: just seen Glenda Jackson's "tribute" - that's more like it!


It all just makes me want to leave the country and live in a hole somewhere.

Edit: Yes I've just watched it on You Tube, pretty good no nonsense.

[Paulclem]

I'm biting my metaphorical tongue after all that utter bo11ox in The House yesterday. (By the way neely, MPs could claim over £3000 each in travel expences to attend.)

I'm not into celebrating the death of anybody, but neither am I into these sugared eulogies. Yesterday we saw History being kidnapped and rewritten. When I die, I'd like an honest appraisal please, as Oliver Cromwell said "Warts and all"




Edit: just seen Glenda Jackson's "tribute" - that's more like it!

My thoughts exactly. They Tories are being paticularly hypocritical seeing as they had nothing to do with her after she was deposed, and left it to Gordon Brown to welcome her back.

As Juniper noted - she did support some ver controversial policies - Apartheid and I remember her being dead against German Unification. How wrong that was.

I also think that those who are condemning communities for celebrating her death have no real understanding of what effect her policies had for the ordinary working people in industrial areas, particularly from other countries. She was good for the Yuppies, and very bad for the working class. Of course we needed to change, but communities were treated with contempt. The fact that they were labour strongholds clearly contributed to the lack of compassion for communities they had no contact with - and don't today.

The other thing she was well known for was for stopping school milk. When I was at school we all used to get a small bottle of milk at break time - an overhang from leaner times. We shoud have known what was coming.

[kasie]

There will be a time and a place for assessments of the work of Margaret Thatcher - this isn't it. She isn't even in her grave yet - whatever happened to De mortuis nil nisi bonum? It went out of the window with other expressions of good manners, I think. In the past few years she has been far from the Saviour of the Country/Monstrous Tyrant (depending on from which end of the political spectrum she is viewed): she has been a sad, demented old woman for whom death may well have been a merciful release. I'd like to see her laid to rest in dignity and peace, much as I hope to be treated myself. I've asked for no eulogies at my funeral (I've sat in too many churches and chapels wondering if I'm at the right funeral ) - though I won't be around to find out if my wishes are respected. I don't expect the fulsome gushings of the past few days nor, I hope, will there be too much dancing on my grave: I don't think I've earned either, but I'm not a public figure who inspired widely differing opinions. Difficult though it may be, I feel at this time she should be treated as an ordinary mortal and accorded some basic human dignity.

[Scheherazade]

~

R e m i n d e r

Please note that discussion of current politics is not allowed on this Forum.

~

[cacian]

My thoughts exactly. They Tories are being paticularly hypocritical seeing as they had nothing to do with her after she was deposed, and left it to Gordon Brown to welcome her back.

As Juniper noted - she did support some ver controversial policies - Apartheid and I remember her being dead against German Unification. How wrong that was.

I also think that those who are condemning communities for celebrating her death have no real understanding of what effect her policies had for the ordinary working people in industrial areas, particularly from other countries. She was good for the Yuppies, and very bad for the working class. Of course we needed to change, but communities were treated with contempt. The fact that they were labour strongholds clearly contributed to the lack of compassion for communities they had no contact with - and don't today.

The other thing she was well known for was for stopping school milk. When I was at school we all used to get a small bottle of milk at break time - an overhang from leaner times. We shoud have known what was coming.

The Tories are putting their foot in it and so is Labour. Their speeches and adoration of and about Maggie is not looking good. Both have forgotten they have elections to run. The population is listening and is not thinking great things of both of them. Their views an opinions on Maggie is going to backlash against them. and it would be both the tories and labour fault for not thinking ahead of schedule. UKIP's prospect is looking good. Not very clever if you ask me.

[prendrelemick]

There will be a time and a place for assessments of the work of Margaret Thatcher - this isn't it. She isn't even in her grave yet - whatever happened to De mortuis nil nisi bonum? It went out of the window with other expressions of good manners, I think. In the past few years she has been far from the Saviour of the Country/Monstrous Tyrant (depending on from which end of the political spectrum she is viewed): she has been a sad, demented old woman for whom death may well have been a merciful release. I'd like to see her laid to rest in dignity and peace, much as I hope to be treated myself. I've asked for no eulogies at my funeral (I've sat in too many churches and chapels wondering if I'm at the right funeral ) - though I won't be around to find out if my wishes are respected. I don't expect the fulsome gushings of the past few days nor, I hope, will there be too much dancing on my grave: I don't think I've earned either, but I'm not a public figure who inspired widely differing opinions. Difficult though it may be, I feel at this time she should be treated as an ordinary mortal and accorded some basic human dignity.

Before this thread is closed down, I 'd just like to say Kasie's right as usual.

[YesNo]

I'm not into celebrating the death of anybody, but neither am I into these sugared eulogies. Yesterday we saw History being kidnapped and rewritten. When I die, I'd like an honest appraisal please, as Oliver Cromwell said "Warts and all"


The "celebration" of someone's death should probably be rephrased as an "anti-eulogy" so that an opposing position can be presented.

[prendrelemick]

Truelogy?

[YesNo]

Ah, truelogy. That's what every eulogy and anti-eulogy thinks it is already.

The creation of history reminds me of a study of Samuel and Kings portraying the documents as propaganda justifying Solomon's right to rule after his military coup. All other accounts were eliminated. It would be as if only eulogies to Thatcher were allowed to survive.

At least today we have the internet to record dissent.

I'm planning to see The Iron Lady this weekend. Did this movie fairly represent Thatcher?

[kasie]

Against all my expectations (or call them prejudices if you will) I found the film very moving. I never expected to find myself feeling sorry for her but I thought the film tried to show her as a fallible human with a family who loved her in spite of her failings, as well as a political figure who left such a mark for good or ill on the country. Meryl Streep's performance was outstanding - for once I forgot I was watching Meryl Streep and found her portrayal realistic and sympathetic. The political issues were dealt with a light touch, it was a portrait of a woman in decline rather than an analysis of her success or failure in a position of power. Her tragedy was shown less as a fall from might than as a sad all too human decline which could afflict any one of us. I've watched a beloved family member fade in just such a way and I felt the film dealt tenderly not just with the suffering of the woman herself but with the grief it brought her family and true friends.

[prendrelemick]

Against all my expectations (or call them prejudices if you will) I found the film very moving. I never expected to find myself feeling sorry for her but I thought the film tried to show her as a fallible human with a family who loved her in spite of her failings, as well as a political figure who left such a mark for good or ill on the country. Meryl Streep's performance was outstanding - for once I forgot I was watching Meryl Streep and found her portrayal realistic and sympathetic. The political issues were dealt with a light touch, it was a portrait of a woman in decline rather than an analysis of her success or failure in a position of power. Her tragedy was shown less as a fall from might than as a sad all too human decline which could afflict any one of us. I've watched a beloved family member fade in just such a way and I felt the film dealt tenderly not just with the suffering of the woman herself but with the grief it brought her family and true friends.



And a Carol.

[Emil Miller]

Some funny things I've read or seen this week about her that I didn't know:

• She supported white rule and the apartheid in South Africa and called Nelson Mandela a ‘terrorist’
• Believed in the Berlin wall and did not want Germany re-united
• Believed that writers should get a proper job
• Commented that if a man over 25 is still using public transport then he is a failure!


She probably ate babies for breakfast as well but, as far as the last comment, I personally have seen Jo Grimond (former Liberal Party leader) and Dennis Skinner (the Beast of Bolsover) on the London underground. David Milliband was also recently photographed asleep in an underground train carriage as well. So perhaps there's something to be said in favour of Mrs Thatcher's assertion.



It all just makes me want to leave the country and live in a hole somewhere.



But you already do dear boy, it's called the UK.



My thoughts exactly. They Tories are being paticularly hypocritical seeing as they had nothing to do with her after she was deposed, and left it to Gordon Brown to welcome her back.


Considering how far North of Watford Gordon Brown's constituency is, his welcoming Mrs Thatcher to Downing Street does seem a bit odd.



The Tories are putting their foot in it and so is Labour. Their speeches and adoration of and about Maggie is not looking good. Both have forgotten they have elections to run. The population is listening and is not thinking great things of both of them. Their views an opinions on Maggie is going to backlash against them and it would both the tories and labour if neither get elected UKIP's prospect is looking good. Not very clever if you ask me.

This is the second coherent post you have made in this thread, could the troll's mask be slipping?

[LitNetIsGreat]

But you already do dear boy, it's called the UK.

Ha, ha, yes. I was thinking about buying a caravan and living in the woods. I'm only partially joking as well!


This is the second coherent post you have made in this thread, could the troll's mask be slipping?

Either her account has been hacked or she's just come off a 10 year bender.:cheers2:



Ideally it would be a quiet and dignified service, as you pointed out.

This would be the most tasteful thing to do, but it seems we don't live in tasteful times.

[Paulclem]

There will be a time and a place for assessments of the work of Margaret Thatcher - this isn't it. She isn't even in her grave yet - whatever happened to De mortuis nil nisi bonum? It went out of the window with other expressions of good manners, I think. In the past few years she has been far from the Saviour of the Country/Monstrous Tyrant (depending on from which end of the political spectrum she is viewed): she has been a sad, demented old woman for whom death may well have been a merciful release. I'd like to see her laid to rest in dignity and peace, much as I hope to be treated myself. I've asked for no eulogies at my funeral (I've sat in too many churches and chapels wondering if I'm at the right funeral ) - though I won't be around to find out if my wishes are respected. I don't expect the fulsome gushings of the past few days nor, I hope, will there be too much dancing on my grave: I don't think I've earned either, but I'm not a public figure who inspired widely differing opinions. Difficult though it may be, I feel at this time she should be treated as an ordinary mortal and accorded some basic human dignity.

I agree too, but the eulogists have the news and the stand, and, while I personally would want someone to be treated with dignity, and find it unfortunate mainly for the rest of her family, I felt I had to state just what motivates communities to celebrate her death. They were very difficult times for certain sections of the country as you know, and i felt the balance needed to be made a bit.

Ideally it would be a quiet and dignified service, as you pointed out.

[Paulclem]

Ha, ha, yes. I was thinking about buying a caravan and living in the woods. I'm only partially joking as well!

:

One by the sea surely. They have static ones down at Skeggie.

[LitNetIsGreat]

One by the sea surely. They have static ones down at Skeggie.

I'm not going anywhere near that hell hole. I want to live in Goathland and ride around on my bike.

[Paulclem]

I'm not going anywhere near that hell hole. I want to live in Goathland and ride around on my bike.

:lol:

I understand.

[Emil Miller]

Whether members agree with the proposition or not, it's likely that Mrs Thatcher will be remembered as a patriot. So perhaps a patriotic ditty would be appropriate. :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3dD05mu3qQ&feature=share&list=PLA091CE73EB5E9770

[cafolini]

Against all my expectations (or call them prejudices if you will) I found the film very moving. I never expected to find myself feeling sorry for her but I thought the film tried to show her as a fallible human with a family who loved her in spite of her failings, as well as a political figure who left such a mark for good or ill on the country. Meryl Streep's performance was outstanding - for once I forgot I was watching Meryl Streep and found her portrayal realistic and sympathetic. The political issues were dealt with a light touch, it was a portrait of a woman in decline rather than an analysis of her success or failure in a position of power. Her tragedy was shown less as a fall from might than as a sad all too human decline which could afflict any one of us. I've watched a beloved family member fade in just such a way and I felt the film dealt tenderly not just with the suffering of the woman herself but with the grief it brought her family and true friends.

This is pure propaganda. Margareth Thatcher did not fail but on the contrary. And Streep did not portray such tragedy. Margaret's family did not suffer a bit out of it. The only thing you are lacking here is to join Emil Miller with the Nazi bologni he posted below. What an assigment he got, the poor man. ROFLMAO!!!!

[qimissung]

Both Kasie and Juniper Woolf. The thing is that she was out of the public eye and her death brings her back into it. It's not helpful to be jubilant about her death. It doesn't help change policies. I dislike politicians, but changing public policy is hard work, so merely hating what they do is not enough. WE have to work for change. Also, changing her particular policies turned out to be more difficult than they thought:



The second miscalculation was the assumption, made until quite late in the day, that what she was doing to the country could, and would, eventually be undone. This had always more or less happened in postwar politics: little pendulum swings to the left and then to the right along the years. Now, post-Thatcher, the pendulum continues to swing, but inside a clock that has been rehung on the wall at a completely different angle.

Which I found in this longer article "The Woman Who Wrecked Great Britian":

http://www.salon.com/2013/04/09/the_woman_who_wrecked_great_britain/

[Emil Miller]

I understand that 2000 guests have been invited to attend the funeral, and I'm wondering whether Arthur Scargill and Denis Skinner are among them. Or will their invitations conveniently be lost in the post?

[LitNetIsGreat]

I understand that 2000 guests have been invited to attend the funeral, and I'm wondering whether Arthur Scargill and Denis Skinner are among them. Or will their invitations conveniently be lost in the post?

Well if it's owt like our post it'll probably turn up after the funeral anyway.

[prendrelemick]

This would be the most tasteful thing to do, but it seems we don't live in tasteful times.


And that, I think, is partly her legacy. Good manners, compassion , a conscious, had no role in her society. Perhaps she was right, but Britain is now a nastier place.

[Emil Miller]

And that, I think, is partly her legacy. Good manners, compassion , a conscious, had no role in her society. Perhaps she was right, but Britain is now a nastier place.


Britain started becoming a nastier place long before Mrs Thatcher, partly as a result of living in the cloud cuckoo land of non-punitive sentencing, ushered in and fostered by her opponents and beloved of lawyers and criminals

'The deterioration in public behaviour had been caused by a naïve belief in the post-war political consensus that, because what had happened in Germany was wrong, the right way to govern a country was to renounce punitive sentencing and rely on the theory of rehabilitation to uphold the rule of law. The significance of this miscalculation was not lost on either the criminal fraternity or the legal profession, for the obvious consequence of such a policy was that criminality would flourish to the benefit of both.'

Pro Bono Publico

[prendrelemick]

I agree with some of the above, but that's not what I'm talking about. Criminality has always been among us whatever the sentencing regeme.

I lived through those changes and remember the values we were taught and the certainties we knew, were suddenly overturned. Spivs and chancers thrived, dishonesty and greed were seen to be rewarded. "Working class values" were destroyed and in the vacuum the current drug and crime culture thrived.

So a 12 year old of the 1980's nicks a car radio, and an entrepenuer asset strips a million pound company puts hundreds out of work and makes a huge profit. guess which one of them received the Knighthood.

[kasie]

This is pure propaganda. Margareth Thatcher did not fail but on the contrary. And Streep did not portray such tragedy. Margaret's family did not suffer a bit out of it. The only thing you are lacking here is to join Emil Miller with the Nazi bologni he posted below. What an assigment he got, the poor man. ROFLMAO!!!!

Please look again - I wrote failings - not failure - there's a difference. The tragedy to which I alluded was her decline in health: if you think suffering from Alzheimers Disease is not a tragedy which affects not only the sufferer but his/her immediate family and carers, I can only think you have no personal experience of it or are not able to make the leap of imagination as to the extent of its insidious effect.

I also wrote that the film did not set out to analyse her success or failure in a position of power. I saw it as a portrait of a sick old woman, one who had once had immense power and who now, through the ravages of disease, could not even manage her day to day life. Sic transit.....

Have you seen the film, btw?

[Emil Miller]

I agree with some of the above, but that's not what I'm talking about. Criminality has always been among us whatever the sentencing regeme.

I lived through those changes and remember the values we were taught and the certainties we knew, were suddenly overturned. Spivs and chancers thrived, dishonesty and greed were seen to be rewarded. "Working class values" were destroyed and in the vacuum the current drug and crime culture thrived.

So a 12 year old of the 1980's nicks a car radio, and an entrepenuer asset strips a million pound company puts hundreds out of work and makes a huge profit. guess which one of them received the Knighthood.

Criminality is as old as its concept but, as in all things, it is a matter of degree. I also remember the values I was taught and, as I have pointed out, saw them being overturned long before Mrs Thatcher arrived on the scene. Yes there was an increase in criminality as some sought to take advantage of her economic reforms, necessitated by decades of political and economic mismanagement, but the forces of the ruinous status quo were too great for her to take on in their entirety and the criminal element were left to exploit the situation. The word 'spiv', incidentally, was coined as far back as WWII to describe criminals who operated in the black market.
As for the twelve-year-old thief, there are plenty among Mrs Thatcher's opponents who would, in the name of inclusiveness, also grant him a Knighthood were it possible.

[Scheherazade]

What I have problem with here is the notion that society is something other than ourselves; that it develops and behaves without us knowing or consenting. We are parts of the society we are discussing here; ourselves, our family members, friends, colleagues and neighbours so, if any changes are happening, it is never without our knowing or, in some cases, consent.

I believe that Thatcher or any other leader, political or otherwise, cannot be held responsible for singlehandedly changing the way a society behaves.

[Emil Miller]

What I have problem with here is the notion that society is something other than ourselves; that it develops and behaves without us knowing or consenting. We are parts of the society we are discussing here; ourselves, our family members, friends, colleagues and neighbours so, if any changes are happening, it is never without our knowing or, in some cases, consent.

I believe that Thatcher or any other leader, political or otherwise, cannot be held responsible for singlehandedly changing the way a society behaves.

As individuals we are integrated into society, but in order to make an objective assessment of it it's necessary for the individual to look at it from the outside.
In doing so, we cannot disassociate ourselves entirely from the subjective but, according to the degree that we are able to, we can form a more accurate idea of how society works.

[Paulclem]

What I have problem with here is the notion that society is something other than ourselves; that it develops and behaves without us knowing or consenting. We are parts of the society we are discussing here; ourselves, our family members, friends, colleagues and neighbours so, if any changes are happening, it is never without our knowing or, in some cases, consent.

I believe that Thatcher or any other leader, political or otherwise, cannot be held responsible for singlehandedly changing the way a society behaves.

I think there's truth in this, but the matter is complicated by there being a number of societies in the UK. It was even more marked in the 1980's where the industiral cities of the north, the Midlands, Scotland and Wales bore little in common with the leafier parts of Britain. You see it now with the Countryside Alliance and their sarcastic attitude to townies for example.

I remember when we had floods a few years ago, and the media descended on Sheffield, missing the greater problems that were occurring in and around Hull. Sheffield is of course conveniantly up the M1. Good job it wasn't Newcastle.

I think that's why attempts to define Britishness, and efforts to politically and socially unite the country are probably impossible given the great diversity that existed in the 80s and now. People might unite behind a one off common cause - The Olympics perhaps, but the Footie and the Rugby seem to merely reinforce the differences. Rugby, for example had Union and League - basically southern and northern. The football seems to represent towns and cities. Maybe in the country it's cheese chasing or polo.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I believe that Thatcher or any other leader, political or otherwise, cannot be held responsible for singlehandedly changing the way a society behaves.

Not singlehandedly of course, but nevertheless any political leader has huge influence in the direction society takes and behaves along with the media. And Thatcher's influence as leader was more than most. I remember seeing a documentary on how she conducted her meetings, it ran along the lines of - 'this is what I think, does anybody [dare to] disagree with me? OK, next item on the agenda...' A democratic dictatorship? Of course it is not as simple as saying in came Thatcher, out went community (and with it those values) in comes competition and dog eat dog, but she certainly had a central part to play in it.

There's a completed You Gov verdict on her time in power here:
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/04/10/final_verdict_thatcher/

[Scheherazade]

Or it is possible to conclude that maybe the leaders elected reflect the general mood of the society... They sell certain ideas, we buy them (or not) and elect them to deliver what they have promised.

As a side note, Paul, I doubt Emil will be embracing football or rugby as a social-glue anytime soon.

I wonder whether we are secretly longing for a 19th century society where everyone knew and accepted "their places" and respected their "betters"... with the assumption that those "betters" would be us.

Of course, in a society like that, I would probably have been the semi-literate wife of a semi-literate tailor or butcher as my grandparents came from very humble backgrounds, both parents managing to get education simply because they were considered bright and sent to state supported schools on scholarships.

(The same is true for myself as well, of course. Had it not been for the scholarships, I wouldn't have been able to leave the fishing town I grew up in to study and end up living in the UK. Sorry, Emil! Another immigrant for you to put up with!)

[prendrelemick]

What I have problem with here is the notion that society is something other than ourselves; that it develops and behaves without us knowing or consenting. We are parts of the society we are discussing here; ourselves, our family members, friends, colleagues and neighbours so, if any changes are happening, it is never without our knowing or, in some cases, consent.

I believe that Thatcher or any other leader, political or otherwise, cannot be held responsible for singlehandedly changing the way a society behaves.

Very good point. The effects of leadership are subtle and difficult to asses. Do leaders lead - or give consent for us to go where we were going anyway.? Perhaps all Mrs T did was to remove constraints - moral and legal - and allowed people to be what they truely are.


Edit: just read above - same basic point.

[Emil Miller]

As a side note, Paul, I doubt Emil will be embracing football or rugby as a social-glue anytime soon.



:lol: Spot on. I don't even know which one has the oval ball.

I would also add that I don't know anything about polo or cheese chasing either.

[prendrelemick]

I think there's truth in this, but the matter is complicated by there being a number of societies in the UK. It was even more marked in the 1980's where the industiral cities of the north, the Midlands, Scotland and Wales bore little in common with the leafier parts of Britain. You see it now with the Countryside Alliance and their sarcastic attitude to townies for example.

I remember when we had floods a few years ago, and the media descended on Sheffield, missing the greater problems that were occurring in and around Hull. Sheffield is of course conveniantly up the M1. Good job it wasn't Newcastle.

I think that's why attempts to define Britishness, and efforts to politically and socially unite the country are probably impossible given the great diversity that existed in the 80s and now. People might unite behind a one off common cause - The Olympics perhaps, but the Footie and the Rugby seem to merely reinforce the differences. Rugby, for example had Union and League - basically southern and northern. The football seems to represent towns and cities. Maybe in the country it's cheese chasing or polo.

Huntin' shootin' Fishin'


Or it is possible to conclude that maybe the leaders elected reflect the general mood of the society... They sell certain ideas, we buy them (or not) and elect them to deliver what they have promised.

As a side note, Paul, I doubt Emil will be embracing football or rugby as a social-glue anytime soon.

I wonder whether we are secretly longing for a 19th century society where everyone knew and accepted "their places" and respected their "betters"... with the assumption that those "betters" would be us.

Of course, in a society like that, I would probably have been the semi-literate wife of a semi-literate tailor or butcher as my grandparents came from very humble backgrounds, both parents managing to get education simply because they were considered bright and sent to state supported schools on scholarships.

(The same is true for myself as well, of course. Had it not been for the scholarships, I wouldn't have been able to leave the fishing town I grew up in to study and end up living in the UK. Sorry, Emil! Another immigrant for you to put up with!)

Oddly enough her mantra was "Return to Victorian Values"

Perhaps she meant hanging children.


Criminality is as old as its concept but, as in all things, it is a matter of degree. I also remember the values I was taught and, as I have pointed out, saw them being overturned long before Mrs Thatcher arrived on the scene. Yes there was an increase in criminality as some sought to take advantage of her economic reforms, necessitated by decades of political and economic mismanagement, but the forces of the ruinous status quo were too great for her to take on in their entirety and the criminal element were left to exploit the situation. The word 'spiv', incidentally, was coined as far back as WWII to describe criminals who operated in the black market.As for the twelve-year-old thief, there are plenty among Mrs Thatcher's opponents who would, in the name of inclusiveness, also grant him a Knighthood were it possible.

They were upgraded in the 80's to operate in the financial markets

[Emil Miller]

(The same is true for myself as well, of course. Had it not been for the scholarships, I wouldn't have been able to leave the fishing town I grew up in to study and end up living in the UK. Sorry, Emil! Another immigrant for you to put up with!)

:lol: Strange that the location given beneath your avatar is: 'Not where I like to be'



They were upgraded in the 80's to operate in the financial markets

Actually, as far as the financial markets are concerned they were around both before and after the 80's. Joseph Kagan and Ronald Milhench come to mind but they were certainly around during Mrs Thatcher's premiership, as I wrote about the period of financial deregulation following her arrival in Downing Street.

'Occasionally, conspiracy to defraud comes to the attention of the Serious Fraud Office and makes headline news, but one never knows of those cases that are not discovered, and the events following Roger’s meeting with his son fell into that category. The board of Opal Oil attended an extraordinary meeting held out of hours and at which no minutes were taken. What was said by those attending remained secret for the rest of their lives and resulted in a takeover by Opal Oil of Penfold Resources before news of its oil strike could force up the share price.'

Pro Bono Publico

[YesNo]

if you think suffering from Alzheimers Disease is not a tragedy which affects not only the sufferer but his/her immediate family and carers, I can only think you have no personal experience of it or are not able to make the leap of imagination as to the extent of its insidious effect.

I didn't know she had Alzheimer's. I can see how this could be a more interesting movie.

One thing I've noticed is that some call her "Mrs" Thatcher in this thread. I'm used to referring to political people by just their last names or with their first if there might be confusion. The "Mrs" sounds strange to me, but I may sound rude to others by not using it.

[Emil Miller]

I didn't know she had Alzheimer's. I can see how this could be a more interesting movie.

One thing I've noticed is that some call her "Mrs" Thatcher in this thread. I'm used to referring to political people by just their last names or with their first if there might be confusion. The "Mrs" sounds strange to me, but I may sound rude to others by not using it.

From the start of her appearance on the political scene, she was referred to as Mrs because, unlike other women who might have been in politics at that time, she epitomised the married woman who wouldn't allow familiarity except perhaps to close associates and her family. She automatically commanded respect and her interlocutors, in the media for example, recognised it. She was sometimes referred to simply as 'Thatcher' but that tended to be among the 'loony left' as they were known, or political pundits, both male and female, seeking to demonstrate their masculinity in vis a vis the woman who had been called the 'strongest man in the cabinet.'

[Scheherazade]

I don't refer male politicians with their title so why should she be treated differently? Blair, Major, Cameron, Thatcher.

Wouldn't it be rather sexist to single her out in that manner?

[Emil Miller]

I don't refer male politicians with their title so why should she be treated differently? Blair, Major, Cameron, Thatcher.

Wouldn't it be rather sexist to single her out in that manner?

It's interesting that news readers often refer to those mentioned as Tony Blair, John Major or David Cameron but usually say Mrs in relation to Margaret Thatcher although her surname is sometimes used adjectivally as in 'Thatcherite policies' for example. I don't think she would have recognised the word sexist.

[prendrelemick]

Though she was a feminist icon, she reportedly said "I hate feminism - it is poison." I think that is partly why she insisted on "Mrs" Thatcher.

[kev67]

I didn't know she had Alzheimer's. I can see how this could be a more interesting movie.

One thing I've noticed is that some call her "Mrs" Thatcher in this thread. I'm used to referring to political people by just their last names or with their first if there might be confusion. The "Mrs" sounds strange to me, but I may sound rude to others by not using it.

She was usually referred to as Mrs Thatcher, Margaret Thatcher or Maggie Thatcher at the time she was prime minister. She was usually referred to as Mrs Thatcher by newscasters and television presenters, but often as Maggie Thatcher by the public, although probably more by her detractors.

It's sometimes difficult to remember that after she left office she took the title Baroness, so should formally have been referred to as Baroness Thatcher or Lady Thatcher. Baroness is a hereditary title, although passed on down the male line. I was reminded of that when I read Mark Thatcher referred to as Sir Mark Thatcher, as he would be now. I don't suppose that is going to go down very well with the general public neither. Mark Thatcher is a very contentious figure. It was suspected he made himself a millionaire as a middleman for a Tornado jet bomber contract with Saudi Arabia. Later he was involved in a mercenary venture to overthrow an African state.

[Emil Miller]

Though she was a feminist icon, she reportedly said "I hate feminism - it is poison." I think that is partly why she insisted on "Mrs" Thatcher.

It's ironic that 'feminists' are not infrequently the least feminine women imaginable. One that I had dealings with at work was unprepossessing and full of self loathing, while another, although less physically unattractive, had a voice like a foghorn and played the saxophone. I never went along with the idea that Mrs Thatcher was particularly attractive but she was always well dressed, albeit in a matronly way, and I couldn't imagine her playing the saxophone although perhaps she did, who knows what went on behind closed doors?

[Scheherazade]

It's ironic that 'feminists' are not infrequently the least feminine women imaginable. One that I had dealings with at work was unprepossessing and full of self loathing, while another, although less physically unattractive, had a voice like a foghorn and played the saxophone. I never went along with the idea that Mrs Thatcher was particularly attractive but she was always well dressed, albeit in a matronly way, ... No wonder you enjoyed reading Maugham!

[Emil Miller]

No wonder you enjoyed reading Maugham!


:lol:

[cafolini]

Though she was a feminist icon, she reportedly said "I hate feminism - it is poison." I think that is partly why she insisted on "Mrs" Thatcher.

Margaret hated feminism because the need for it sprung from a sick society. She was born female. Wasn't that enough?

[cacian]

Margaret hated feminism because the need for it sprung from a sick society. She was born female. Wasn't that enough?

I would say quite the reverse feminism disliked her because there was nothing feminine about her. Don't forget she was a peasant girl at heart. Peasantry and cities do not quite mix and as a result you get someone like her who have not quite a grasp of how modern societies link up with secular and therefore the destructive element about her was because she did not have a grasp of how and what makes societies tick.
I would say someone in her position came saw and conquered but also destroyed and uprooted evil from its own grief. The worse ever to happen to the UK. That is my opinion. She was devisive and still is and tories and labour will suffer as a consequence of it because they saw something in her they could not quite get and yet revere her. That is shocking and it will cost them their politics.

[Emil Miller]

Don't forget she was a peasant girl at heart.


:smilielol5:

[cacian]

:smilielol5:

Why are you laughing?
Margaret's father used to own two grocery shops. Her parentage is from the shires her root are deep seated in peasantry. Farmers is another word for it. She is no middle class she is from working class background. Research if you do not believe.

[*Classic*Charm*]

Why are you laughing?
Margaret's father used to own two grocery shops. Her parentage is from the shires her root are deep seated in peasantry. Research if you do not believe.

I believe he's laughing because, while she may come from a "peasant" (ugh) family, calling her a peasant girl at heart implies that she was innocent, naive, and perhaps simple. None of which describes Mrs. Thatcher. At all.

[cacian]

I believe he's laughing because, while she may come from a "peasant" (ugh) family, calling her a peasant girl at heart implies that she was innocent, naive, and perhaps simple. None of which describes Mrs. Thatcher. At all.

Ah I got it now. I did not realise that is what it meant.
Maggie was a peasant girl through and through and her entourage getting mixed up with city scapes got to her head a bit hence the shambles of her policies.

[prendrelemick]

Hang on a minute Emil, there are parallels with Joan of Arc here. A simple peasent girl, chosen by destiny to free her country from the grip of the tyrannous left, only to be betrayed by her own side at the moment of victory, and sacrificed for a weak and weedy John Major.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Yes I remember her first day in office, she turned up at 10 Downing Street with a milk churn and a milking stool.

[cacian]

Hang on a minute Emil, there are parallels with Joan of Arc here. A simple peasent girl, chosen by destiny to free her country from the grip of the tyrannous left, only to be betrayed by her own side at the moment of victory, and sacrificed for a weak and weedy John Major.

Joan of Arc? I do not believe she existed. I doubt very much her story is real. She is as fictional as Robin Hood but then I might completely wrong so feel free to take it apart.
Maggie however was no no simple but more a complex stoic with no denouement if I may say so. Very randy and ferocious. I would not want to cross another like her again. Let's keep farmers to their lands it is best kept that way and fair. City is bad air for peasants.

[cacian]

Yes I remember her first day in office, she turned up at 10 Downing Street with a milk churn and a milking stool.
I am surprised. She snatched milk away from the kids because she believed they ought to have got it themselves ie milk it/work hard for it themselves. She was outraged at the fact that city dwellers got milk for free whilst her parentage/family had to work hard to get it. City kids were therefore penalised for it. Why else do you think she snatched the milk out of their daily diet? out of charity for the poor? she was angered her family had to do work hard for it and city kids only had to wave money at it to get it.

[*Classic*Charm*]

Joan of Arc? I do not believe she existed. I doubt very much her story is real. She is as fictional as Robin Hood but then I might completely wrong so feel free to take it apart.

:eek: Completely wrong indeed.



Maggie however was no no simple but more a complex stoic with no denouement if I may say so. Very randy and ferocious. I would not want to cross another like her again. Let's keep farmers to their lands it is best kept that way and fair. City is bad air for peasants.

But you just said in two separate posts that she was a country girl. After I clarified why it was laughed at the first time, you said it again. And are now denying it? I'm confused.

[cacian]

:eek: Completely wrong indeed.




But you just said in two separate posts that she was a country girl. After I clarified why it was laughed at the first time, you said it again. And are now denying it? I'm confused.

I am not denying I am saying she is a peasant girl. where does it say I have denied it?
I said she was no simple she was more a stoic duplexity in the sense that she was both a peasant and brought up in a city. It is a kind of a cultural mix up and a very bad one. not a cocktail by any means but a more a lethal potion.

[*Classic*Charm*]

I am not denying I am saying she is a peasant girl. where does it say I have denied it?
I said she was no simple she was more a stoic complexity in the sense that was both a peasant and brought up in a city. It is a kind of a cultural mix up and a very bad one. not a cocktail by any means but a more a lethal potion.

I misunderstood your last post. I was genuinely asking for clarification, which you have now provided :)

[cafolini]

I would say quite the reverse feminism disliked her because there was nothing feminine about her. Don't forget she was a peasant girl at heart. Peasantry and cities do not quite mix and as a result you get someone like her who have not quite a grasp of how modern societies link up with secular and therefore the destructive element about her was because she did not have a grasp of how and what makes societies tick.
I would say someone in her position came saw and conquered but also destroyed and uprooted evil from its own grief. The worse ever to happen to the UK. That is my opinion. She was devisive and still is and tories and labour will suffer as a consequence of it because they saw something in her they could not quite get and yet revere her. That is shocking and it will cost them their politics.

However, Emerson was a peasant and beat you in argument from almost every possible angle you chose.

[Emil Miller]

I misunderstood your last post. I was genuinely asking for clarification, which you have now provided :)

This must surely be the most disingenuous post in the history of Litnet.



Hang on a minute Emil, there are parallels with Joan of Arc here. A simple peasent girl, chosen by destiny to free her country from the grip of the tyrannous left, only to be betrayed by her own side at the moment of victory, and sacrificed for a weak and weedy John Major.

Joan of Arc said she heard the voice of God commanding her, but Mrs Thatcher wouldn't have let him get a word in sideways and, although he does look weak and weedy, John Major not only holds Oliver Cromwell's old constituency but actually went to bed with Edwina Curry: a proposition that even the Lord Protector would have quailed at.

[Scheherazade]

Yes I remember her first day in office, she turned up at 10 Downing Street with a milk churn and a milking stool.Is that when they started keeping cows in their garden?

Knowing Maggie, I am sure she would get up early before the Cabinet meetings to make sure that milking was done just so.

[*Classic*Charm*]

This must surely be the most disingenuous post in the history of Litnet.

Now, now!


Knowing Maggie, I am sure she would get up early before the Cabinet meetings to make sure that milking was done just so.

And then laugh at all the children who didn't get milk that day?





Weren't we supposed to be talking about death, anyway?

[Paulclem]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMFjFoq6T9M

Tasteless no doubt, but this song is challenging for number 1 in the charts. The BBC is considering whether to play it. Given that the last song banned when it got to No. 1 was the Sex Pistols "God Save the Queen", if it is banned, it will join a notable list of the politically uncomfotable and will go down in history.

I just don't think people who weren't involved, part of or living in an affected industrial area in the 80s really understand how negative the policies were for those people. So many were affected. As the figurehead - like Blair with the Gulf War- she took, and is taking the flak.

Edit - Newsnight is running a piece on it as I type.

[prendrelemick]

Joan of Arc? I do not believe she existed. I doubt very much her story is real. She is as fictional as Robin Hood but then I might completely wrong so feel free to take it apart.
Maggie however was no no simple but more a complex stoic with no denouement if I may say so. Very randy and ferocious. I would not want to cross another like her again. Let's keep farmers to their lands it is best kept that way and fair. City is bad air for peasants.



I don't know where to start!



Meanwhile the other side have released I'm in love with Mrs Thatcher - Grantham-style. it was up to tenth an hour ago. (Yup, maggie back in at number 10.)

Number seven now, with a day to go. Eat your heart out Simon Cowell.

[Scheherazade]

And then laugh at all the children who didn't get milk that day? And then proceed to sell them the milk 50p a cup.

[prendrelemick]

After privatising the cow.

[*Classic*Charm*]

After privatising the cow.

:lol:

[Scheherazade]

:hurray: Post of the day :hurray:


After privatising the cow.

[prendrelemick]

I'm finding all this silliness very cathartic, especially the battle of the songs. Years of Thatcher bitterness leaving my body.

[The Atheist]

Sorry, I know this has been moved past, but I'm catching up here!


What I have problem with here is the notion that society is something other than ourselves; that it develops and behaves without us knowing or consenting. We are parts of the society we are discussing here; ourselves, our family members, friends, colleagues and neighbours so, if any changes are happening, it is never without our knowing or, in some cases, consent.

I have to disagree quite strenuously.

For a start, very, very few governments ever have a majority of registered voters, so you can't say those who didn't vote for the ruling regime gave consent to make societal changes, which is what governments do.

There are hundreds of historical examples of governments forcing change on populations despite enormous, and sometimes huge majority, opposition.




I believe that Thatcher or any other leader, political or otherwise, cannot be held responsible for singlehandedly changing the way a society behaves.

Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot... or on the other side, Martin Luther King, Mohandas Gandhi and Nelson Mandela spring to mind.

[Emil Miller]

Maggie however was no no simple but more a complex stoic with no denouement if I may say so. Very randy and ferocious.

In taking up the irresistible challenge of finding evidence for this statement, I found this little missive on a Yahoo search site:


'Would you not agree that Margaret Thatcher was sexy in her youth?

Picture a 20 something Margaret Thatcher, dressed in leather as a dominatrix, with a whip in hand, ready to punish you for being naughty. How hot is that?

I have a picture of Bettie page, and I taped Margret Thatcher's face over Betty's..'


I had no idea who Bettie Page was until I checked her out:

http://imageshack.us/a/img17/7971/thenotoriousbettiepage0.jpg


It's most unlikely that Mrs Thatcher would have engaged in such activity but, as I have said, who knows what went on behind closed doors.:ihih:

[Zaza]

The only people who could find Margaret Thatcher sexy are those who imagine being dominated by her. All I can see is the forties and fifties clothes that made everyone look middle-aged before they were, and that voice! Sounds like she had elocution lessons to get rid of a regional accent and took it too far. Like a cat scratching a blackboard.

In Scotland Margaret Thatcher was the most hated person since Edward I, the 'Hammer of the Scots'. Honourable mention to 'Butcher' Cumberland, for his cruelties after the battle of Culloden.

[Emil Miller]

The only people who could find Margaret Thatcher sexy are those who imagine being dominated by her. All I can see is the forties and fifties clothes that made everyone look middle-aged before they were, and that voice! Sounds like she had elocution lessons to get rid of a regional accent and took it too far. Like a cat scratching a blackboard.

In Scotland Margaret Thatcher was the most hated person since Edward I, the 'Hammer of the Scots'. Honourable mention to 'Butcher' Cumberland, for his cruelties after the battle of Culloden.

Well if Scotland hadn't agreed to the Union in the first place, it could have saved itself a lot of grief. However, there will be an opportunity to redress the balance in the forthcoming independence referendum, and if Scotland refuses to leave the Union it will get all it deserves.

[cafolini]

Well if Scotland hadn't agreed to the Union in the first place, it could have saved itself a lot of grief. However, there will be an opportunity to redress the balance in the forthcoming independence referendum, and if Scotland refuses to leave the Union it will get all it deserves.

The Roman Catholics will not lose Scotland no matter what. Scotland will remain Victorian. The illuminati have hopes of coming back and they will not let go. One gram of antimatter. ROFLMAO!!

[YesNo]

I just saw The Iron Lady which was amazing. I don't pay much attention to politics, but I like the way she handled the Falkland Islands war at least the way the movie presented it. For the other stuff about the economy, if she had not done what she did, would Britain be better or worse off today?

[prendrelemick]

Who knows? The Labour party was funded by the unions, so was hamstrung when it came to reforming the economy.- though Callahagn had tried to start. Thatcher's policy was to confront and destroy them utterly. Her Faikland Factor majority giving her a free hand.

I keep coming back to an interview with Dennis Healey about the North Sea Oil. The projections for the potential revenue came across his desk. (He was Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer.) It was an enormous sum - Remember, Britain was broke at the time - He described how he went to see the Prime Minister and showed him the figures. and how for the next hour or so they discussed (Fantasized) what they could do with the money. New roads, schools, hospitals, decent housing, modernise the nationalised industries and utilities.

After an hour or so, the Prime Minister said. You realise, with resources like this, whoever wins the next election will be in power for a long time. And so it proved.

Mrs Thatcher - or her Government - took the resource and squandered it on a monetary experiment - the money went directly into private hands,(and foreign hands) from which it was supposed to "trickle down" into the wider economy. Her absolute faith in "The Market" as the answer to everything was miss-placed, because The Market cares only for itself and prefers short term returns.

I would've liked someone like Harold Wilson to squander the money in the other direction.

[Emil Miller]

I just saw The Iron Lady which was amazing. I don't pay much attention to politics, but I like the way she handled the Falkland Islands war at least the way the movie presented it. For the other stuff about the economy, if she had not done what she did, would Britain be better or worse off today?

I urge you to read my Pro Bono Publico that tells the true story of what happened to the UK from 1945-1979. It tells how in the aftermath of WWII, the UK was loaned $3.5 billion by the USA and Canada and the first post-war Labour government squandered it on a welfare system and nationalisation of the country's infrastructure that by 1976 had bankrupted the country and we had to call on the IMF to loan the UK a further £2.5 billion. By the time Mrs Thatcher became Prime Minister three years later, the country was already riven with strikes as the unions rebelled against the strictures of the IMF and the Labour government, which was effectively the political arm of the unions, were unable to control the situation. The former Conservative government, under the weak and vacillating Ted Heath, had capitulated to the miners who had demanded ruinous pay increases that further damaged an industry that was already being kept afloat by taxation and money borrowed from abroad and a similar situation prevailed in the steel industry. The pattern had been set; all the unions had to do was to threaten to strike and the government would cave in, meanwhile the UK was becoming like the bombed out industrial landscape so noticeable in the smoke stack industries of communist eastern Europe. This was the situation when Mrs thatcher became PM; there was no room for compromise, the country was in dire straights and drastic measures were needed to bring the union barons and their minions to heel. They thought that by using the strong arm tactics employed previously, they could cow Mrs Thatcher but they miscalculated; she took them on brought them to heel and put them to bed.
As for North sea oil, had the Labour party been re-elected, they would have squandered it on trying to prop up a crumbling welfare state and its nationalised industries that always destroy the wealth needed to sustain them.

[cacian]

I just saw The Iron Lady which was amazing. I don't pay much attention to politics, but I like the way she handled the Falkland Islands war at least the way the movie presented it. For the other stuff about the economy, if she had not done what she did, would Britain be better or worse off today?

Well let's just for a minute put the Falklands on a map . One can clearly see it is not particularly English is it? England's map is separate from the Faulklands map and so from this pedagogical point of view England and the Falkland's are not related. It is clear on the map that they do not belong together.
The sensible thing to have done is to avoid the war all together.

[Volya]

Well let's just for a minute put the Falklands on a map . One can clearly see particularly English is it? England's map is separate from the Faulklands map and so from this pedagogical point of view England and the Falkland's are not related. It is clear on the map that they do not belong together.
The sensible thing to have done is to avoid the war all together.

It doesn't matter how far away it is, it was owned by Britain, and the people in the Falklands wanted to stay British (or at least, they do at the moment, not entirely sure about back then). And even if it weren't, allowing another nation to just invade your territory and take it over makes you seem weak in my opinion.

[cacian]

It doesn't matter how far away it is, it was owned by Britain, and the people in the Falklands wanted to stay British (or at least, they do at the moment, not entirely sure about back then). And even if it weren't, allowing another nation to just invade your territory and take it over makes you seem weak in my opinion.

Hi Volya and nice to see you back :)
I completely agree there is no doubt that one's invasion of someone else's land territory is wrong and must be defended.
When I first heard about the Falklands I was surprised about the distance in which it separates the UK from it. Strategically it is an English territory because it is not within the boundaries of the UK.
The other thing is it is not clear who discovered the islands first back in the 17th century and therefore in terms of where it stands it is neither here or there.
The British claims over its territory is bound to provoke wars. Who knows who may come up next with another reason to want to claim it back?
Wiki is saying it was the bore/dutch who discovered it first back in 1600 but then it also says it was discovered by the Europeans. What does wiki mean by Europeans?
Europe today is a mix of nationalities and European is therefore vague over its claim.
I personally feel that the UK and the Falklands is nothing but trouble as far as Europe is concerned. The Falkalnds war happened before it does not mean it won't happen again. I feel the the Falkland ownership makes the UK stand vulnerability. There are nutters born every minute I would not trust it as far as I can throw it. Basically I would not touch the falklands with a barge pole.
Owing English territories all over the world would mean that more and more English people would want to emigrate and live abroad where english is specifically spoken such as the US Canada Australia and Newzeland as well the Falklands or in neighbouring Europe such as Spain and alike.
So in terms of English identity it is already being scattered around the globe and eventually out of view. This is how it seems to me.
Eventually and with time England/UK will be fully non English European owned by non english europeans. Remember where there is people there is influx and so I think one day the UK will be solely inhabited by non English people from all over the world. It is already happening.
Those who are resident in the Falklands for example would be exposed to threats from invaders from outside Europe and alike I would not want to live there if I could help it. That is the plan it seems to me anyway. Let's say England is wanted out let's say pushed out . That is my honest opinion on the matter.

[Emil Miller]

Well let's just for a minute put the Falklands on a map . One can clearly see it is not particularly English is it? England's map is separate from the Faulklands map and so from this pedagogical point of view England and the Falkland's are not related. It is clear on the map that they do not belong together.
The sensible thing to have done is to avoid the war all together.

There is some logic to this point of view. The islands are over 7000 miles from the UK and 300 miles from Argentina but Mrs Thatcher was right to send a task force to retake them from the Argentian military after they had been forcibly annexed by Argentina. It's worth remembering that she did this against the advice of cabinet colleagues who were, to put it bluntly, terrified of failure. The launch of the task force and retaking of the islands is one of the greatest logistical achievements in military history but personally I'm more impressed with what she achieved at home in rescuing the economy from another form of usurpation by the pro-communist union movement. Apart from the fact that the UK has to garrison the Falklands at great cost, the population is sparse to say the least. I think that the current Argentinian government should be negotiated with and some deal worked out that gives both countries a stake in any future oil revenues that may be discovered in the surrounding waters of the islands.

[cacian]

In taking up the irresistible challenge of finding evidence for this statement, I found this little missive on a Yahoo search site:


'Would you not agree that Margaret Thatcher was sexy in her youth?

Picture a 20 something Margaret Thatcher, dressed in leather as a dominatrix, with a whip in hand, ready to punish you for being naughty. How hot is that?

I have a picture of Bettie page, and I taped Margret Thatcher's face over Betty's..'


I had no idea who Bettie Page was until I checked her out:

http://imageshack.us/a/img17/7971/thenotoriousbettiepage0.jpg


It's most unlikely that Mrs Thatcher would have engaged in such activity but, as I have said, who knows what went on behind closed doors.:ihih:

This is looking good indeed big;)
Shame we cannot see the face of Maggie over Betty's. It would make for a real laugh haha.

[YesNo]

There is some logic to this point of view. The islands are over 7000 miles from the UK and 300 miles from Argentina but Mrs Thatcher was right to send a task force to retake them from the Argentian military after they had been forcibly annexed by Argentina. It's worth remembering that she did this against the advice of cabinet colleagues who were, to put it bluntly, terrified of failure. The launch of the task force and retaking of the islands is one of the greatest logistical achievements in military history but personally I'm more impressed with what she achieved at home in rescuing the economy from another form of usurpation by the pro-communist union movement. Apart from the fact that the UK has to garrison the Falklands at great cost, the population is sparse to say the least. I think that the current Argentinian government should be negotiated with and some deal worked out that gives both countries a stake in any future oil revenues that may be discovered in the surrounding waters of the islands.

I agree. It is not the islands themselves but their location and the resources owning them gives one a right to that must be considered as you mention. For the Argentinian government to just take over the islands without negotiation was wrong and it seemed that Lady Thatcher met that challenge nicely.

The war that Bush and Blair later got themselves into in Iraq, on the other hand, was unjustified.

[cacian]

I agree. It is not the islands themselves but their location and the resources owning them gives one a right to that must be considered as you mention. For the Argentinian government to just take over the islands without negotiation was wrong and it seemed that Lady Thatcher met that challenge nicely.

The war that Bush and Blair later got themselves into in Iraq, on the other hand, was unjustified.

Not to mention Kuwait and Afghanistan none of these wars are really the England's make up. England was made involved with both of them.
Having the falklands as a territory means the British navy gets to keep its formalities and keep training ie spending money on behalf of the working British population. One needs to justify the spending cuts and the Falklands is a very good reason why the navy is vital. Future wars await.
This means England is made the scape goat whenever the Us or France decide they have a war to run. England gets to send her troops for support. Another threat is soon coming from South Korea meaning England will fork out the help needed to support any of the allies suggestions to go to war yet again. The Falkland's is just a very good reason for the navy to subsidise while your average British worker slaves day in and day out to keep the war momentum going . The allies in the meantime get to peddle about and around looking hugely important because they know England is army prepared.

[Emil Miller]

I agree. It is not the islands themselves but their location and the resources owning them gives one a right to that must be considered as you mention. For the Argentinian government to just take over the islands without negotiation was wrong and it seemed that Lady Thatcher met that challenge nicely.

The war that Bush and Blair later got themselves into in Iraq, on the other hand, was unjustified.

Yes Bush tailed along after Cheney and Blair tailed along after Bush. The justification for the war had less to do with WMDs and more with Halliburton's balance sheet and Cheney's retainer's fee.

[Paulclem]

I agree with your thoughts on the current Falklands dispute. Ideally, it would have ben best to negotiate a really good deal for the islanders whilst we were in a strong position rather than posture and postpone inevitable problems until today. The regime was corrupt then, but we could have waited a good few years to finalise. The islanders are living a dream of Britishness that lots of expats do. It would be better for them to face reality. but then it is a less than ideal world, and people prefer fantasy.

[YesNo]

Not to mention Kuwait and Afghanistan none of these wars are really the England's make up. England was made involved with both of them.
Having the falklands as a territory means the British navy gets to keep its formalities and keep training ie spending money on behalf of the working British population. One needs to justify the spending cuts and the Falklands is a very good reason why the navy is vital. Future wars await.
This means England is made the scape goat whenever the Us or France decide they have a war to run. England gets to send her troops for support. Another threat is soon coming from South Korea meaning England will fork out the help needed to support any of the allies suggestions to go to war yet again. The Falkland's is just a very good reason for the navy to subsidise while your average British worker slaves day in and day out to keep the war momentum going . The allies in the meantime get to peddle about and around looking hugely important because they know England is army prepared.

I hadn't thought of the training that the Falklands provide the British military. It is best to do sort of thing far from home.

I like to think, or fantasize especially after watching the movie, that if Margaret Thatcher were Prime Minister rather than Tony Blair, Bush would have been the lap dog and maybe those wars wouldn't have had to happen at all. Of course, as a US citizen I can't get away from my own responsibility even if I didn't vote for him.

[LitNetIsGreat]

It seems that the ten million figure is widely reported to be the figure costing the state for her funeral on Wednesday. 'A modest sum' says one minister interviewed on ITV. I'm sure ten million is a 'modest sum' for Tory MPs but for millions of real people ten million is far from modest.

[Volya]

It seems that the ten million figure is widely reported to be the figure costing the state for her funeral on Wednesday. 'A modest sum' says one minister interviewed on ITV. I'm sure ten million is a 'modest sum' for Tory MPs but for millions of real people ten million is far from modest.

You never did answer my question Neely.

[cafolini]

I hadn't thought of the training that the Falklands provide the British military. It is best to do sort of thing far from home.

I like to think, or fantasize especially after watching the movie, that if Margaret Thatcher were Prime Minister rather than Tony Blair, Bush would have been the lap dog and maybe those wars wouldn't have had to happen at all. Of course, as a US citizen I can't get away from my own responsibility even if I didn't vote for him.

Yes, the British travel 8,000 miles to go do training in the Falklands. ROFLMAO!!

[LitNetIsGreat]

You never did answer my question Neely.

What, the one asking why Margaret Thatcher's funeral shouldn't be funded by the state? I'm sorry it just doesn't deserve a response.

[Scheherazade]

~

F i n a l___W a r n i n g

Discussion of current political issues is not allowed on this Forum.

~

[Emil Miller]

I agree with your thoughts on the current Falklands dispute. Ideally, it would have ben best to negotiate a really good deal for the islanders whilst we were in a strong position rather than posture and postpone inevitable problems until today. The regime was corrupt then, but we could have waited a good few years to finalise. The islanders are living a dream of Britishness that lots of expats do. It would be better for them to face reality. but then it is a less than ideal world, and people prefer fantasy.

Very true. Despite the islanders' wishes, their position is a tenuous one. They are a long way from 'home' and, in the nature of power politics, they are only a bargaining chip in the Falkland's scenario. Which is why the recent referendum on British sovereignty is dismissed by Argentina as a gimmick. Ideally, the islands could be leased to Argentina for 100 years with the UK's rights to shared oil and mineral resources guaranteed. The problem is that entrenched positions make it difficult to arrive at a solution where the opposing parties would benefit without the use of force.

[cafolini]

Very true. Despite the islanders' wishes, their position is a tenuous one. They are a long way from 'home' and, in the nature of power politics, they are only a bargaining chip in the Falkland's scenario. Which is why the recent referendum on British sovereignty is dismissed by Argentina as a gimmick. Ideally, the islands could be leased to Argentina for 100 years with the UK's rights to shared oil and mineral resources guaranteed. The problem is that entrenched positions make it difficult to arrive at a solution where the opposing parties would benefit without the use of force.

I don't think you understand the situation. The British made the islanders citizens. Case closed.

[Volya]

What, the one asking why Margaret Thatcher's funeral shouldn't be funded by the state? I'm sorry it just doesn't deserve a response.

No not that, I agree with you there. The one about why my question came across as trollish.

[prendrelemick]

Just read the Faulkland Islands' history on Wikipedia. It's a mess - always has been. The Brits don't really want them, the Argies really really want them, but are going about getting them in completely the wrong way.

Had the military Junta understood the British psyche and asked nicely, they would have got them by now.

[Emil Miller]

Just read the Faulkland Islands' history on Wikipedia. It's a mess - always has been. The Brits don't really want them, the Argies really really want them, but are going about getting them in completely the wrong way.

Had the military Junta understood the British psyche and asked nicely, they would have got them by now.

The problem was that the Junta wanted to ensure its hold on the country and the Falklands invasion was a means of gaining public support.

[LitNetIsGreat]

No not that, I agree with you there. The one about why my question came across as trollish.

Just because it seemed such a bizarre suggestion, for us to pay for her funeral, being such a lover of the private market etc. Not I that I thought you was a troll, as I know that's not the case, just that it was a trollish sort of suggestion, almost perverse. Though maybe you were just being devil's advocate?

[Paulclem]

I don't think you understand the situation. The British made the islanders citizens. Case closed.

I can see it now - the British team of negotiators present that to the Argentine team who then throw up their arms exclaiming of course - case closed. End of story. They'll all end up ROFLTAO and everyone will go home happy.

Simple.

[cafolini]

I can see it now - the British team of negotiators present that to the Argentine team who then throw up their arms exclaiming of course - case closed. End of story. They'll all end up ROFLTAO and everyone will go home happy.

Simple.

The only option left the Argentineans have is to have a fascist temper tantrum of the kind they have always had and keep killing each other in liberated neighborhoods over issues of soccer. President Mujica of Uruguay understands their stupidity, mainly that of Cristina Fernandez.
What happened in the Falklands might one of these days happen in Gibraltar. A referendum over there will choose the British by over 90%.

[Paulclem]

The only option left the Argentineans have is to have a fascist temper tantrum of the kind they have always had and keep killing each other in liberated neighborhoods over issues of soccer. President Mujica of Uruguay understands their stupidity, mainly that of Cristina Fernandez.
What happened in the Falklands might one of these days happen in Gibraltar. A referendum over there will choose the British by over 90%.

You're right about the Gibraltarians. I went there in the late 80s and they were very anti-Spanish.

[Volya]

Just because it seemed such a bizarre suggestion, for us to pay for her funeral, being such a lover of the private market etc. Not I that I thought you was a troll, as I know that's not the case, just that it was a trollish sort of suggestion, almost perverse. Though maybe you were just being devil's advocate?

Sort of. As I think I mentioned I really don't know much about Thatcher and what she did, so I was wondering whether or not the funeral could be justified in any way.

[cacian]

Sort of. As I think I mentioned I really don't know much about Thatcher and what she did, so I was wondering whether or not the funeral could be justified in any way.

A funeral is justified because one is to be buried or otherwise. What is not required is such a huge demonstration of army and base and half the city cut off from everyday business for a funeral procession. The concept of it all is done without the prior consent of the population of London and beyond and that is undemocratic. It is an imposition on people whether they liked it or not and that is wrong. extremely.

[prendrelemick]

The cost is about the same as the "Unavoidable cuts" to the Arts Council's budget. So I shall be regarding it as one of those anarchic street art events, only with soldiers instead of students

[LitNetIsGreat]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2013/apr/16/margaret-thatcher-funeral-10-million

Interesting little datablog for the 'modest fee' of Thatcher's last two fingers up.

[kiki1982]

Yes, well, isn't she supposed to get one as an ex-PM, no matter what she did or did not do?

I do understand all the celebratory fuss about her death, but I don't find it appropriate. As if she did much in her later years. She was only of note from the time she became a leading Tory and that wasn't even from when she was elected (in the sixties? It was still black-and-white television anyway). Then she must still have been a back-bencher. So, she just did all the painful stuff that had to happen and which Germany was also doing at the time (and a few unnecessary bits to boot) in a few years and now we're going to rejoice over her death. Nobody is really worth that, although it is understandable that there are those who think it is appropriate.
Unless you are at a Germanic style wake, you should drink to someone's death. That's not nice.

I love it that the British police have said that anyone who wishes to protest at the funeral can do so, provided they just turn around in silent protest when her coffin passes. I don't think that civil British thing of standing behind the painted line because it's there is going to work tomorrow somehow. :D I'm definitely going to watch it on the Beeb. A historic moment like that can't be missed.

[Emil Miller]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2013/apr/16/margaret-thatcher-funeral-10-million

Interesting little datablog for the 'modest fee' of Thatcher's last two fingers up.


Now I know I've referenced Pro Bono Publico several times since the death of Mrs Thatcher, simply because she was the inevitable result of those who governed the UK under a system of mutual backscratching that suited its perpetraters to the detriment of the country at large. Even so, Mrs Thatcher gets only this mention in the book:

'The most important event at this time, however, was the defeat of the Conservative leader in a ballot of members to decide on the leadership, and his replacement with the first woman ever to lead a political party in Britain. Nemesis was finally at hand for those in her party who had compromised with socialism and acquiesced in consensus.'

So the two fingers up didn't only apply to the unions but also to those whom she called 'the wets' in her own party.

[Lokasenna]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2013/apr/16/margaret-thatcher-funeral-10-million

Interesting little datablog for the 'modest fee' of Thatcher's last two fingers up.

I must admit, I'm always slightly suspicious of things like this - you know, the why-are-we-wasting-money-on-this-when-we-could-buy-three-billion-dialysis-machines style of argument. The extension to Tate Modern, for example, is set to cost £215 million, about £60 million of which will be coming out of tax-payers' money. Whilst I'm no great fan of modern art, I see the point/necessity of the project - but you can bet there will be plenty of people out there who think that's a titanic waste of cash that could be better spent on kitten sanctuaries/duck pond houses/windmills/schools for lobsters. The spending of public money usually generates some kind of controversy; Baroness Thatcher's funeral moreso than most.

I'm neither one way nor the other with Mrs T - I disagree with a lot of the things that she did, but there are also aspects of her government and character that are admirable. In the grand scheme of things, £10 million is not a titanic amount - about 16p per head of population, and thus a damn sight less than the 79p a great many people have spent to download a copy of 'Ding Dong! The Witch is Dead!' to get it up in the best-seller charts.

Ultimately, she was the longest serving Prime Minister of modern times, the first female Prime Minster, and a major participant in the ending of the Cold War - like her or loathe her, these are factors that require some measure of recognition.

[WICKES]

But as the day wore on, I began to find it increasingly ghoulish how certain groups were greeting the death of frail, demented old woman with almost seraphic joy - applause at the NUS conference, street parties in Brixton and Glasgow, the leader of the Durham Miners declaring it 'the happiest day of my life.'

Consequently, I ended up engaging in several FB debates on the subject, and was suprised at the manner in which several of my friends, who are intelligent and civilized people, were nevertheless declaring this behaviour as appropriate.

Yes...I share your distaste. I'm no fan of Thatcherism (and I don't know how anyone interested in the arts can be), but I am no fan of ugly, crude, graceless behaviour either. I despise the grinning morons who held street parties just as much as I despise Thatcherites.

[Paulclem]

This has been an interesting thread. I suppose it will decline rapidly after she's interred, unless we have civil disobediance that re-ignites it again.

Anyone going out tomorrow?

[LitNetIsGreat]

Yes I am also distrustful of the why-are-we-wasting-money-on-this sort of argument/article, (usually found in some publications such as the Mail) but to me 10 million is still 10 million and for someone who raped the state and didn't believe in society it is one final insult that the state has to pay up. I just think it is in utter distaste. A quiet private funeral, in both senses of the word, is what should have happened, not the flag waving parading that we will see tomorrow when at least half of the people in the country detested her and her government.


Anyone going out tomorrow?

To protest?

Edit:

Oh and the 16p per person argument doesn’t hold any ground with me. I detest and abhor the fact that a single penny is being taken from my tax contributions to bury any politician never mind her. You might as well ask the Jews to contribute a small ‘modest sum’ to erect a plague of Hitler (after all like him or loathe him he was a powerful leader) the actual sum is completely immaterial. The fact that there is any sum to the public purse is in my opinion a total disgrace.

[Lokasenna]

Yes I am also distrustful of the why-are-we-wasting-money-on-this sort of argument/article, (usually found in some publications such as the Mail) but to me 10 million is still 10 million and for someone who raped the state and didn't believe in society it is one final insult that the state has to pay up. I just think it is in utter distaste. A quiet private funeral, in both senses of the word, is what should have happened, not the flag waving parading that we will see tomorrow when at least half of the people in the country detested her and her government.



To protest?

Edit:

Oh and the 16p per person argument doesn’t hold any ground with me. I detest and abhor the fact that a single penny is being taken from my tax contributions to bury any politician never mind her. You might as well ask the Jews to contribute a small ‘modest sum’ to erect a plague of Hitler (after all like him or loathe him he was a powerful leader) the actual sum is completely immaterial. The fact that there is any sum to the public purse is in my opinion a total disgrace.

Fair enough. I was simply questioning the validity of that particular kind of argument, not the strength of feeling behind your sentiments!

[Paulclem]

To protest?



Yes - but I jest. I wouldn't protest at anyone's funeral.

The tedium has begun. My daily dose of porrige and BBC news has been interrupted by those interminable special programmes reporting on someone's arrival and departure - the Pope, The Queen and today Mrs T's burial. So we have shots or reporters standing outside on the route telling you things like - the flags are at half mast, people are having their breakfast blah blah blah. Rubbish.

[kasie]

.......Anyone going out tomorrow?

Definitely. All day. As far away from a television as I can get. I think a private funeral followed at a later date by a Memorial Service would have been quite sufficient. It's enough for most politicians. I can't help feeling someone, somewhere, is making political hay out of what should be a private, family event.

[prendrelemick]

Yup! It's going to be a shouting at the telly day for me I think.

[Scheherazade]

Definitely. All day. As far away from a television as I can get. I think a private funeral followed at a later date by a Memorial Service would have been quite sufficient. It's enough for most politicians. I can't help feeling someone, somewhere, is making political hay out of what should be a private, family event.Yep. What Kasie said.

[Lokasenna]

I'm keeping away from the TV as well, though every now and then I flick on to the BBC's website - everything seems quiet.

I did like this bloke though: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22180329. I wish more people would make protests in such a dignified, thoughtful and eloquent way - I think that speaks far more powerfully against Thatcher/Thatcherism than grotesque effigies, drunken street parties, and up-beat Judy Garland numbers.

Oh well, thanks to Youtube I'm still getting some political entertainment - currently listening to a series of old Paxman vs. Galloway interviews while I work. They should just give the two of them a selection of melee weaponry, and let them get on with it - most entertaining.

[WICKES]

I did like this bloke though: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22180329. I wish more people would make protests in such a dignified, thoughtful and eloquent way - .

...me too. The best of the working class socialists I remember as a child were real men who'd have considered it beneath them to celebrate the death of an old woman.

[prendrelemick]

Never thought I'd be glad to see Bargain Hunt!

[Emil Miller]

I have just watched the whole ceremony and it was quite brilliantly stage managed although I don't usually bother with that sort of thing. The interesting part was trying to put a name to the old political dinosaurs, of whom there were many, but I searched in vain for Arthur Scargill and Denis Skinner. A much more pleasant interlude was watching Mrs Thatcher's grand daughter Amanda give a reading at the service as she is a little lollipop. I've long had a liking for Mrs. Cameron ( don't tell Dave) who looked particularly charming and elegant. It's not only Electra that mourning becomes.

[Emil Miller]

Doubled the post. But I'll take the opportunity to say that Sir Bernard Ingham looked like the creature from the black lagoon.

[TheFifthElement]

Yes, well, isn't she supposed to get one as an ex-PM, no matter what she did or did not do?

That's the thing kiki, aside from Churchill no other former PM has been given a ceremonial funeral. Not even Clement Attlee, who was doubtless the greatest post war PM and a campaigner for consensus and freedom and a promoter values such as caring for others, especially the poor, and whose government rebuilt Britain post-war.

Kasie makes a great point here:


I think a private funeral followed at a later date by a Memorial Service would have been quite sufficient. It's enough for most politicians. I can't help feeling someone, somewhere, is making political hay out of what should be a private, family event.

because there is a sense of political capital about this whole affair, and it's not even clear if it's really what Thatcher wanted. In terms of the protests, I think most people would agree that it is inappropriate to protest at a funeral however this is not just a funeral it's a ceremonial and public event. Being so, I think it is absolutely right in a democracy that people have the right and facility, and can exercise those rights, to express their opinions whatever they are and that includes, in this case, the right to protest against Thatcher's policies and the way they continue to echo through the society she didn’t even believe in to this day.

I can understand why people have felt very angry about this whole event. I think the way it has been done, with the pomp and the eulogising, that it has scraped up a whole load of bad feeling that people probably thought they'd worked past and which they feel compelled to express just to counter the impression that would otherwise be left, that she was a great leader and did great things for this country. That is one view, but it isn't the whole story. I don't think it is right to ask people to pretend that they're sad or to ignore the harm that was done, the anger, the violence, the mistakes or the pain any more than it would be right to stop people from expressing their sorrow or their admiration of her. People have said that she was a divisive politician and I think that was true. Her policies worked well for some areas of the country and some areas of the economy. For others they were devastating. People lost their jobs, their communities and their hope for the future. Some sections of the population were directly discriminated against, as in the case of Section 28 which caused a great deal of harm to the homosexual communities. The case of miners has already been mentioned. I don't think it is inappropriate to question her choice in friends (Jimmy Saville anyone?), her undying and vocal support for Pinochet in spite of his terrible and brutal crimes against his own people. General Suharto she referred to as "one of our very best and most valuable friends". Her support of Saddam Hussein's regime. Her misplaced statements about Mandela and her stance against imposing sanctions on Apartheid South Africa. There are still questions to be answered about how much influence she had in the 'softening' of the criticism of the police following the Hillsborough disaster, which has resulted in years of blame being laid in the hands of the victims, though I think one of the mothers of a Hillsborough victim got it right when she said "it is terrible to speak ill of the dead. I know, because that's exactly what happened to my son."

I also think that the celebrations, as distasteful as they might be, are merely an expression of the powerlessness that people felt and, perhaps, continue to feel in the face of policies over which they had little influence and could do little to change. It is a little trite, I think, to say things like 'well if people didn't like it they should have voted against it' as this ignores the fact that many people did vote against the government of the time and many people would have been impacted by these policies who did not have even have the right to vote. The young in particular were affected by the lack of jobs and many people would have grown up seeing their parents on picket lines, losing their jobs and their self-respect, or in poverty. Then there are the people who did protest, and whose protests were brutally quashed by the police at the time. What I remember, as I was quite young during the Thatcher era, is seeing riot after riot after riot on TV. People did protest, but it's ineffectual if no one is listening.

Perhaps the sight of mass groups of people celebrating the death of a politician who caused them or those that they loved harm is one of the safety mechanisms that makes other politicians stop and think before implementing policies which will inflict damage on swathes of the population. Very little is done in this country to canvass public opinion for changes in policy, once the polls are closed. Of course it wouldn’t prevent the brutal dictator and it probably wouldn’t have stopped Thatcher who patently didn’t care about the damage being done, but perhaps in the current media age it might inspire a pause for thought and maybe that in itself is enough.

And I think there is a certain hypocrisy about it. No one seems to have a problem with people celebrating on the streets where Gaddafi’s body was being dragged out of the storm drain and photographed and filmed and shared around the world on YouTube. No one is saying, “you know that Stalin was just a sad old man in the end wasn’t he?” or the same about Pol Pot or Chairman Mao though perhaps they too had families and people who loved them, perhaps they were sometimes kind to strangers and also just doing what they thought was best. Conviction politicians. The rhetoric works in kind of in the same way.

And my main worry about all of this is that it detracts from the current problems. By talking about and focusing on Thatcher it makes us all focus on the past and diverts our attention from what needs to be done now. Thatcher’s policies were destructive to many, but many successive governments have done little about it. People are, and feel, just as powerless now as they did back then, and little has been done to engage a public consensus, a different style of politics, in spite of the meteoric technological advancements, particularly in the area of communications, which would make it possible now. If people really want to reject what she stood for, the stagnation of British politics which still seems to be caught in the wake of what she did, then turning their backs at her funeral isn’t the best way to do it. But it does leave you asking, what is there that you can do that would matter? And that is, perhaps, the question we should be asking of our politicians now rather than debating the finer points of her legacy.


Of course whatever you thought of Thatcher, for the positive or negative, she did inspire some amazing TV. Quite astonished that the thread has gone so far and no one has yet posted a clip from Spitting Image.

[Emil Miller]

Of course whatever you thought of Thatcher, for the positive or negative, she did inspire some amazing TV. Quite astonished that the thread has gone so far and no one has yet posted a clip from Spitting Image.

Here's one.

http://imageshack.us/a/img11/5595/haroldwilson.jpg

[prendrelemick]

Meanwhile in Leeds...

http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k78/prendrelemick/BIC_UQiCUAArbmP_zps98e5646d.jpg (http://s85.photobucket.com/user/prendrelemick/media/BIC_UQiCUAArbmP_zps98e5646d.jpg.html)

and that really is the best way to protest.

[prendrelemick]

Doubled the post. But I'll take the opportunity to say that Sir Bernard Ingham looked like the creature from the black lagoon.


Oi! He's my homie. (If that's the correct term for a hometown boy.)

[Emil Miller]

Oi! He's my homie. (If that's the correct term for a hometown boy.)

Here he is as of today.


http://imageshack.us/a/img839/8917/x500x.jpg