Thread: Purgatory: Lady Thatcher and State Funerals Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001203
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
There was a slot on World at One today on whether Lady Thatcher - who is still alive - should be given a state funeral when she goes, as we all shall, the way of Ninevah, Tyre and Kim Jong-il. This is prompted by this article in the Daily Telegraph by Peter Oborne. Surprisingly perhaps for the Telegraph, he is against the idea.
Leaving aside the distaste one feels about talking about the funeral arrangements for someone who is not dead, what do other shipmates think?
I'm not as paranoidly anti Lady Thatcher as a lot of people are. On balance she did some things that were necessary, some things that were not, some things that look obsessional and malevolent, and should have relinquished the helm sooner. But I don't think she should get a state funeral. It would be deeply divisive. Like that of Ivan the Terrible, much of her political praxis was based on those who were 'one of us', and those, whether in her own party or in the wrong jobs, who were not. The only non-royal in my lifetime to be given one was Churchill and that was for being a great war leader and keeping the Germans out. Apart from that one fundamental fact, he would not have been awarded one on his political record.
There were only two great Prime Ministers in the C20. Both were flawed. Churchill was one of them. The other was not Mrs Thatcher, was though, like Churchill, a war leader and was not given a state funeral.
I do get a bit fed up with the claim that Lady Thatcher is up among the real greats. She isn't. Lady Thatcher is in the Upper Second of PMs, along with Attlee, Macmillan and possibly Baldwin. I don't think anyone ever suggested they should get state funerals. Why should she?
A state funeral is a tribute of national gratitude, an opportunity for public mourning. A state funeral for a controversial figure would look like an opportunity not to mourn but for those who still think of themselves as an 'us' to use their positions in power to crow over those that don't agree with them.
Nor do I want to see a state funeral that is surrounded by hostile demos, which if it were to go ahead, it would be.
That's my view, and I'm not even that anti the Iron Lady. What do other shipmates think?
[ 15. June 2016, 18:43: Message edited by: Belisarius ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
No way. We can't afford it and she doesn't deserve it.
Her 'market forces' agenda is still causing harm. There are two market forces - fear and greed imo. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posted by chive (# 208) on
:
I don't really care. I'll just be glad to see her dead.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
She was the leader of your government for a pretty formative period. You might as well have something of a to-do. You don't really have to feel sorry. Just look like it for a couple hours. Think of it as showing up for the funeral of a malicious aunt that didn't even leave you any money.
I imagine people who don't really know what political movements are really about will show up to hold up tasteless signs, hurl bricks through electronics store windows, and shout either way, so scratch that as a factor.
Zach
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
Since she hated "The State" why should the state provide her with a funeral?
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on
:
Enoch, I think Attlee deserves a bit better than an upper second. As the poem says:
Few thought him even a starter
Counted themselves very much smarter
But he finished PM, CH and OM
an Earl and a Knight of the Garter
And I'm a filthy Tory.
BTW, I agree with almost every word of Peter Oborn's article.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
Since she hated "The State" why should the state provide her with a funeral?
To celebrate her passing and pray earnestly that we won't see the like again.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
Since she hated "The State" why should the state provide her with a funeral?
Exactly. That says it all. (Well, all that can be said on a family website.)
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
And on that theme:
And they that rule in England,
In stately conclave met,
Alas, alas for England,
They have no graves as yet.
I'm hoping the PTB will be more canny than to try. They are big, expensive jollies, given extensive and reverential media coverage, justified by catching 'the mood of the nation'. If they do, then they confirm the rightness of Things As They Are. But if they don't then the establishment is exposed as partisan, and I don't think it wants that.
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on
:
A bit premature. If the government of the day should offer one it should be up to the family to say yea or no .
Dooes Baroness Thatcher deserve it ? I would say she does having led U.K. through the early 1980s.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
Dooes Baroness Thatcher deserve it ? I would say she does having led U.K. through the early 1980s.
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Which wouldn't have been half so traumatic without her.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
She was the leader of your government for a pretty formative period. You might as well have something of a to-do.
Zach, it isn't like that. Our Prime Ministers don't normally get state funerals when in due course they shuffle off their mortal coils. If she got one, it would be difficult thereafter not to argue that every Prime Minister ought to get one.
Trisagion, I'm classing an Upper Second the old way, i.e. a good degree, significantly better than most, whether one agrees with them or not. You only get a First if you're exceptional. Churchill, Lloyd George, Gladstone, Pitt the Younger and Walpole and possibly Disraeli, Peel and Pitt the Elder strike me as the only ones that are even runners for Firsts. Even Palmerston is a bit of a question mark as his main achievements were not as PM.
Lower Second is the default class. Most PMs, Heath, Wilson, Callaghan, Major etc get a Lower Second. The seriously mediocre ones get a Third, or perhaps in Eden's case an Aegrotat. There's only three from the C20 who I'd put in that category.
It's too early to say whether Blair makes Upper Second or not - though I think Iraq means no - and whether Brown is Lower Second or Third.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
Considering that Lady Thatcher was all about cutting taxes and red tape, she should be the first to be opposed to a state funeral. That money could go towards healthcare or social programs which she slashed during her premiership.
I believe Our Lord Jesus Christ will tell her "Yes, Maggie, there is such a thing as 'society'", when she enters into the next life.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
I think the only non-partisan way of assessing a prime minister's effectiveness is the degree to which they managed to put their ideals into practice. On this reckoning Thatcher was a very effective PM, inasmuch as Britain after she stepped down was much closer than beforehand to her vision of an ideal society - and I say this as one who generally dislikes Thatcherism.
Post-WW2 the only other PM of her stature (on this reckoning) would be Clement Attlee.
In general, though, I don't see that there's any body in the British establishment that can be trusted to assess whether or not a prime minister gets a state funeral. So either they should all get one or none does.
[ 22. December 2011, 16:51: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
Shove her over the side of a boat.
That it the way the West deals with bastard leaders, isn't it?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
She was the leader of your government for a pretty formative period. You might as well have something of a to-do.
A "state funeral" is a specific kind of thing, not just "something of a to-do". They are actually quite rare. Monarchs get them (though not even all of them), and giving one to someone who isn't King or Queen is an extremely odd circumstance. Its only ever happened ten times, usually for people who won lots of big wars. And I doubt if even her greatest fans would claim that Mrs Thatcher has anywhere near the historical significance of Isaac Newton, Lord Nelson, or Winston Churchill.
There's a slightly lesser thing called a "ceremonial funeral" which most royalty get, and also some other famous people like Charles Darwin. Even then its not usual for Prme Ministers.
The differences are small in practice - a State Funeral involves lying in State for public viewing with a permanent armed guard (often including members of the Royal Family as well as soldiers) and then the coffin is pulled through London on a gun carriage by large numbers of sailors (the Royal Navy being the Senior Service, having sailors do the job is a greater ceremonial honour than having soldiers do it, though don't tell that to a squaddy in a pub), and the pallbearers will include royalty and military of the equivalent rank of admirals or fieldmarshalls (what the Americans would call five-star generals)
The reason Mrs Thatcher ought not to have one of these "state funerals" or "ceremonial funerals" is that it would be divisive, not uniting. I expect her family know that and wouldn't want one anyway. The theory is that monarchs, and a few absurdly famolus people come to represent the whole nation in some way. However you take that idea, it doesn't apply to Prime Ministers who are party politicians who by definition represent particular interests - their party, their constituency and so on.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Shove her over the side of a boat.
But then you couldn't have the inscription on the tombstone: Licensed for Dancing.
[ 22. December 2011, 17:07: Message edited by: Firenze ]
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
, or perhaps in Eden's case an Aegrotat.
I like that- exactly right, I think. Maybe Bonar Law too?
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
the coffin is pulled through London on a gun carriage by large numbers of sailors (the Royal Navy being the Senior Service, having sailors do the job is a greater ceremonial honour than having soldiers do it, though don't tell that to a squaddy in a pub)
"I'd rather be pulled by a sailor than a soldier" Hmm! I can see this isn't the greatest line in the circs ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Come to think of it, we could add to the national gaiety by combining it with the RN Field Gun Competition- remove Thatch, dismantle coffin, manhandle both over variety of obstacles on the way to Westminster Abbey, reassemble, re-insert Thatch, nail down, lower into grave- all timed - best run of three wins.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
I don't see anything she did deserving of a state funeral. She'll get a great send-off no doubt from family and supporters who no doubt will provide all the opportunity needed for anyone in the country who wants to, to eulogize her. I'm sure the papers and commentators will be knocking themselves silly to say how fantastic she was.
In many ways she was a phenomenon with incredible talent and the guts to mould a nation to her vision. In a personal capacity to have achieved the position and power she did showed a strength of character and a talent that was then, and still is imo largely lacking in politics.
But the vision was divisive to say the least, and in many opinions her talent used as much for great harm, as for great good. A state occasion would just be one huge magnet for all kinds of trouble to take place.
Arguably her leadership through the Falklands War was the most admirable thing. But none of this, in my opinion, is worth a state-funded occasion which should generally reflect the feelings of a grateful and grieving nation.
Is it true, she herself had expressed the hope to have a state funeral?
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
I think history will see Margaret Thatcher as one of the towering figures of the 20th century, one who accomplished great things. (All towering figures, I suspect, have serious flaws - it goes with having that kind of personality.)
She's one of the three individuals - the others being Ronald Reagan (for whom I never voted) and Pope John II (ditto) - who are principally responsible for bringing down the Iron Curtain. The 98% top income tax rate was just obscene. Living within one's means is generally accounted a good thing. And, yes, I cheered as the Empire Struck Back in the Falklands.
I agree with Mr. Oborn as to her divisiveness; she shouldn't have a state funeral. She certainly deserves burial in the Abbey, though, and the honors that accompany that.
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on
:
Bury her in the Falklands and let them give her a state funeral.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus
I think the only non-partisan way of assessing a prime minister's effectiveness is the degree to which they managed to put their ideals into practice.
I don't agree. I think that's a very bad measure. It's assessing a person on how well they achieve their own self-estimation, rather than how well they actually do their job in the public interest. I don't want a person who becomes prime minister or any other leadership role - this goes for the church as well - so as to fulfill their own dream and impose it on the rest of us.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
And invite the people of Argentina dance on her grave.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
quote:
I agree with Mr. Oborn as to her divisiveness; she shouldn't have a state funeral. She certainly deserves burial in the Abbey, though, and the honors that accompany that. [/QB]
I don't think there is room in the Abbey. To my knowledge, none of the recent Royals who passed away are buried in the Abbey.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus
I think the only non-partisan way of assessing a prime minister's effectiveness is the degree to which they managed to put their ideals into practice.
I don't agree. I think that's a very bad measure. It's assessing a person on how well they achieve their own self-estimation, rather than how well they actually do their job in the public interest. I don't want a person who becomes prime minister or any other leadership role - this goes for the church as well - so as to fulfill their own dream and impose it on the rest of us.
I see your point, but I did say it was the most non-partisan approach, rather than the best approach.
If it was up to me I would score Thatcher very poorly for having massively increased social divisions and unemployment. But a hard-bitten Tory might consider that a price worth paying for the reforms she did push through. I don't think you can adjudicate on whether my criteria or the putative Tory's criteria are better without taking sides politically, and a state funeral is supposed to be apolitical.
I would dispute these points:
As for "in their own self-estimation", rather, it's the estimation of the party Thatcher represented.
As for "imposed on the rest of us", "the rest of us" supposedly voted for Thatcher*. If Thatcher wasn't representative of us, that's the fault of our electoral system.
* Disclaimer: I didn't, I was born in 1986.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Churchill, Lloyd George, Gladstone, Pitt the Younger and Walpole and possibly Disraeli, Peel and Pitt the Elder strike me as the only ones that are even runners for Firsts. Even Palmerston is a bit of a question mark as his main achievements were not as PM.
Lower Second is the default class. Most PMs, Heath, Wilson, Callaghan, Major etc get a Lower Second. The seriously mediocre ones get a Third, or perhaps in Eden's case an Aegrotat. There's only three from the C20 who I'd put in that category.
It's too early to say whether Blair makes Upper Second or not - though I think Iraq means no - and whether Brown is Lower Second or Third.
Interesting to speculatd on how future historians will look on our recent prime ministers. My guess is that Wilson's reputation will probably go up quite a lot and Thatcher's down a bit with the long view of history, but its only a guess.
Blair is of course one of the four or five greatest Prime Ministers of the Twentieth Century. Its just a pity his career dragged in into the Twenty-First. Three or four brilliant years are all but obscured by five or six shite ones. His reputation would stand much higher now if his Labour colleagues had the guts that Tories always show when its time to throw the previous captain overboard, and shafted him the way the Tories shafted Thatcher when she became a liability.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
She's one of the three individuals - the others being Ronald Reagan (for whom I never voted) and Pope John II (ditto) - who are principally responsible for bringing down the Iron Curtain.
I may be exposing my ignorance, but how did Thatcher help bring down the Iron Curtain? I do know she was opposed to German reunification.
(And why does Thatcher get more credit than, say, Lech Wałęsa or Václav Havel?)
Posted by Darllenwr (# 14520) on
:
I would be dubious of giving Lady T. a State Funeral, on the grounds of precedent. Granting Churchill a State Funeral was, I believe, considered exceptional. I doubt that one could call Lady T. 'exceptional'. 'Exceptionable' may be.
My point is, if a State Funeral is granted to Lady T, where does one draw the line? John Major? Gordon Brown? I would have thought it potentially opens up a huge can of worms.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Indeed. Mind you, it does say something about the old bat that we're even having this conversation. I can't imagine a similar one being held about any other PM in the last 40-odd years.
And Rossweisse- it's alright to go on about her bringing down the Iron Curtain, but you didn't have to live with her. It was bloody awful. Only good thing about it was that she was an enemy worth having: at least, unlike call-me-Dave, she wasn't always trying to suck up to you by pretending to be your mate.
[ 22. December 2011, 19:16: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by Darllenwr (# 14520) on
:
Well, I guess she did more to polarise opinion than any other PM in the period you mention...
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
, or perhaps in Eden's case an Aegrotat.
I like that- exactly right, I think. Maybe Bonar Law too?
Always glad for a nod to the Canadian! ![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
And invite the people of Argentina dance on her grave.
I may be wrong, but I'm getting a vibe here that leo's not that keen on Baroness Thatcher?!
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
Pierre Trudeau in Canada got a State Funeral; in Canada that means lying in state in the Hall of Honour in the Centre Block of Parliament Hill, your casket is draped in the flag and you get a Guard of Honour from the military or the RCMP (the Mounties use military ceremonial and have the status of a regiment of Dragoons).
Trudeau was divisive but he was Prime Minister for 16 years, including the 1980 Quebec Referendum and the 1982 Patriation of the Constitution.
Jack Layton, the recently deceased Leader of HM Loyal Opposition also got a State Funeral. I'm a member of his party but aside from the RCMP escort and lying in state in Parliament it really wasn't a State Funeral. It was fun but after some of the eulogists I think they are going to tighten up on the State Funeral rules.
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
Wikipedia has an article on state funerals in the U.K. According to it, Disraeli has offered a state funeral but declined it in his will. Florence Nightingale was offered a state funeral but her family declined it. Would Thatcher's family want such a funeral?
The decision involved is obviously being made long before the historians of the future have made their decisions about Thatcher's worth. A couple of prime ministers in the 1800s were given state funerals; does it seem fair to second-guess those decisions now?
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
We're liberaler with state funerals here. I think all recently deceased presidents have gotten one. Gerald Ford got his, as did Ronald Reagan
Zach
Posted by Ondergard (# 9324) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
She was the leader of your government for a pretty formative period.
You got that one wrong, Yank. She wasn't the leader of MY government. She was the leader of HER MAJESTY'S Government, and even at her most popular she never commanded the majority of the votes cast in any election, so even in that sense she wasn't the leader of MY government either.
I didn't vote for her, and never would, and neither would I ever vote for any member of the political party she represented, which I consider to be inherently selfish, greedy, divisive, and fundamentally non-Christian. As was Thatcher.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
We're liberaler with state funerals here. I think all recently deceased presidents have gotten one. Gerald Ford got his, as did Ronald Reagan
Zach
But they are your equivalent of royalty,zach...
And the Falklands should have been settled by negotiation, as John Paul II wanted. (He nearly cancelled his GB visit because of the Falklands War.)
Of course she shouldn't have a state funeral.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
We're liberaler with state funerals here. I think all recently deceased presidents have gotten one. Gerald Ford got his, as did Ronald Reagan
Zach
AIUI, American presidents (however partisan their politics may be) have always been perceived as representing the whole nation in a way that British prime ministers never are. Though I am not a royalist, I don't object to the Queen or any monarch being given a state funeral: as Head of State (however undemocratically chosen) they have a representative role. A prime minister is elected by his/her own political party in order to implement the particular politics of that party.
That's why a state funeral for Churchill makes some sense; it wasn't because he was a great prime minister (he wasn't, in peacetime). But he was an effective war leader who led a more or less united nation to victory, and as such represented the nation in a way unlike any other PM before or since.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Enoch, I think Attlee deserves a bit better than an upper second.
And one of his famous quotes is most apt for the ship:
quote:
Democracy means government by discussion, but it is only effective if you can stop people talking.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
And the Falklands should have been settled by negotiation, as John Paul II wanted. (He nearly cancelled his GB visit because of the Falklands War.)
Interesting. Is there any evidence that further negotiations would have resulted in an Argentine withdrawal?
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
We're liberaler with state funerals here. I think all recently deceased presidents have gotten one. Gerald Ford got his, as did Ronald Reagan
And Britain has state funerals for its heads of state. What we're discussing exceptions to that rule: is the US "liberaler" in that regard? From a glance at Wikipedia, it seems there have been five state funerals for non-presidents (all but one for either Unknown Soldiers or Generals-of-the-Army), half the number of non-sovereigns buried in British state funerals (though two were before the American Revolution).
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
A prime minister is elected by his/her own political party in order to implement the particular politics of that party.
Angloid, I thoroughly disagree with that view, even though widely held, especially by political parties. It has inflicted a lot of pain and bad government on our country over the last two generations.
A party leader is elected by a political party to lead that party.
Once a party is in a position to form a government, it's a lot healthier if we take the line that their duty is to govern in the interests of the country as a whole. They are answerable to the Queen. They are her administration, not their own. Through her they are answerable to the rest of us. They are also answerable to God whether they believe in him or not. Once one looks at it that way, it is straightforward that they are not just answerable to their party faithful to exploit their position to impose their party twaddle on the poor dumb electorate - particularly not if they only have 36% of the vote like the previous administration, or if they haven't got a majority at all, like either part of the present one.
Though I admit that's a tangent as against my OP.
Posted by Molopata The Rebel (# 9933) on
:
If you're going to have a state funeral, I would say 90% of the population have to revere the person in question. If you even have to discuss whether to do it or not, the answer is "no". Accordingly, the very fact that there is a thread on the topic is enough for me to advise against her having the honour.
Posted by oldie (# 9478) on
:
Thatcher should have a memorial service as Harold Wilson had. Her funeral should be private; that's all that need be said
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
According to this OpEd piece in the Guardian , her funeral should be totally run by private enterprise.
Quoting from the proposition that is available online:
quote:
"In keeping with the great lady's legacy, Margaret Thatcher's state funeral should be funded and managed by the private sector to offer the best value and choice for end users and other stakeholders. The undersigned believe that the legacy of the former PM deserves nothing less and that offering this unique opportunity is an ideal way to cut government expense and further prove the merits of liberalised economics Baroness Thatcher spearheaded."
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
A prime minister is elected by his/her own political party in order to implement the particular politics of that party.
Angloid, I thoroughly disagree with that view, even though widely held, especially by political parties. It has inflicted a lot of pain and bad government on our country over the last two generations.
Enoch, I totally agree with you. My statement is just describing the de facto situation.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Interesting. Is there any evidence that further negotiations would have resulted in an Argentine withdrawal?
I dare say I would be rather more excitable over an honest to goodness invasion m'self. But I am an excitable sort.
Zach
Posted by Fradgan (# 16455) on
:
Give her a State funeral, if for no other reason than that she showed more courage and foresight than any other British pol in my memory. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Darllenwr:
Well, I guess she did more to polarise opinion than any other PM in the period you mention...
Than any other in British history.
She was widely hated in a way that no other recent British politician has been.
If she had a State Funeral I could imagine violence breaking out in some places.
quote:
Originally posted by Fradgan:
Give her a State funeral, if for no other reason than that she showed more courage and foresight than any other British pol in my memory.
I think we have pills to fix that problem nowadays.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Ken, can you explain the seeming serenity anti-Thatcher Brits have about Argentina freakin' invading British territory? I really don't understand it.
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
Especially when the entire population of the island wanted to be British and wanted the Argentinians out.
The sinking of Belgrano is no reason either; that was a ship of war flying the Argentine flag, manned by the Argentine Navy which was sunk during a period of declared war by a submarine of the Royal Navy. That was uniformed combat with both sides following all the niceties. If that isn't Proper Naval War, I don't know what is.
It may have been tragic but it wasn't an atrocity.
Posted by Molopata The Rebel (# 9933) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Darllenwr:
Well, I guess she did more to polarise opinion than any other PM in the period you mention...
Than any other in British history.
She was widely hated in a way that no other recent British politician has been.
She was widely adored as well. If you're actually going to change things, then you are going to polarise. Mostly, things aren't the way they are because nobody wants it that way. Rather, they're that way because some people have an avid interest in the status quo. The British system badly needed fixing. Fix some of it she indeed did. Of course, she caused new problems in the process and, IMO, clearly overshot what should have been her goal. But like any steam locomotive having run over several red signals, the Iron Lady wasn't just going to stop when she finally hit the buffers.
IMO she got some important work done, and I think the US is need of someone of her stature to break out of its current fine-tuned political gridlock. Pity nobody is in sight.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Ken, can you explain the seeming serenity anti-Thatcher Brits have about Argentina freakin' invading British territory? I really don't understand it.
Zach, that is looking at our polity from outside. In the same way, we can't understand the extreme antipathy of many of your citizens towards Barak Obama, so extreme that they would rather have virtually anyone, even Sarah Palin, than him as their president. From over here, he looks quite a good president.
The Falkland Isles is not the reason why she arouses such extremely conflicting views.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Especially when the entire population of the island wanted to be British and wanted the Argentinians out.
The sinking of Belgrano is no reason either; that was a ship of war flying the Argentine flag, manned by the Argentine Navy which was sunk during a period of declared war by a submarine of the Royal Navy. That was uniformed combat with both sides following all the niceties. If that isn't Proper Naval War, I don't know what is.
It may have been tragic but it wasn't an atrocity.
Dead right. She (Belgrano not Thatch) could have been tied up at the quayside in Punto Arenas, and we'd still have been entitled to sink her.
Two things that left a lasting impression on me from the Falklands unpleasantness:
(i) The willingness of large sections of the British left to support, in effect, a piece of opportunistic aggression by an appalling right-wing military regime, simply because it was launched against British territory. I count myself as a man of the left but I have not forgotten the lesson that I learned, at the age of 15, to the effect that people on the left can be just as dishonest as those on the right can.
(ii) The nauseating sight of Thatch wrapping herself in the Union Jack for having ejected invaders who, I believed and still believe, were only emboldened to invade because their thought they could get away with it against her government (withdrawal of HMS Endeavour; negotiations about some kind of lease-back or shared sovereignty in about 1980-81; perhaps both governments seeing themsleves as essentially on the same side in global politics).
Stoker Jim Callaghan, on the other hand- who really was a patriot and a staunch naval man- quietly saw off an projected invasion in 1977 without a shot being fired. Indeed, in 1982 on the eve of invasion he set up an opportunity for Thatch to say- falsely- that she had despatched submarines to the Falklands, in the hope that she would deter the Argentinians from moving any further: but she didn't take the opportunity.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Ken, can you explain the seeming serenity anti-Thatcher Brits have about Argentina freakin' invading British territory? I really don't understand it.
FWIW, I don't like Thatcher but I'd give her qualified support over the Falklands. Qualified because:
a. There is something unpleasantly hypocritical about Thatcher making a great fuss about defending white British citizens from eviction in the Falklands, while doing absolutely nothing to prevent or reverse the expulsion of black British citizens from Diego Garcia to make way for an American military base. Most of the latter ended up in pauperism in Mauritius.
b. War should be the last resort. I am under the impression (perhaps wrongly, but Albertus' post seems to confirm it) that other options were available but not used. Very probably the other options wouldn't have worked, but they weren't even tried.
c. The General Belgrano was a legitimate target under all the principles of Just War theory, but the Government lied about where it had been sunk.
Having said that, I agree there is something deeply hypocritical about Left-wingers who are in favour of national self-determination in Kosovo and Tibet and Scotland and Catalunya suddenly suspending this principle in favour of a right-wing military dictatorship, simply because they don't like Thatcher.
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
I feel disturbed regarding the amount of venom engendered by discussion of an elderly lady who was once a Prime Minister. I thought at first the comments had been made under the privilege of Hell posting, but no, they are part of what is supposed to be serious, balanced debate. I realise that I am not part of the British political scene, but would have thought that someone who served their country, even if not approved of universally, was deserving of more respect.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Once a party is in a position to form a government, it's a lot healthier if we take the line that their duty is to govern in the interests of the country as a whole.
They do. All parties would describe themselves as doing exactly that.
The problem is that people honestly disagree about what the interests of the country as a whole are, and even when they agree about the desired end they disagree about the best way to achieve it.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
As for Thatcher, no of course she shouldn't get a state funeral. She's a great former PM, but she's not royalty.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
b. War should be the last resort. I am under the impression (perhaps wrongly, but Albertus' post seems to confirm it) that other options were available but not used. Very probably the other options wouldn't have worked, but they weren't even tried.
I don't know if other options would have worked, but the proposed withdrawal of HMS Endurance under John Nott's Defence Review must have given the Argentinian military junta the impression that Britain wasn't committed to safeguarding the Falkland Islands.
If the Falklands War did any good it was to remove Galtieri and his cronies, but that wasn't Thatcher's intention - it was too good an opportunity for sabre-rattling, although I doubt she ever understood how close-run the war was; had we lost a carrier, we would have been in serious trouble.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Plus at the same time as she was fighting Galtieri she was cosying up to an equally, or more, obnoxious dictator in the shape of Chile's Pinochet.
Evil cow!
Posted by Foxymoron (# 10343) on
:
I'm all for a state funeral for Mrs T, mainly because it will be a day off work and I know she wouldn't like that. I foresee a pleasant day at home with friends, watching the funeral while wearing party hats and blowing kazoos.
I will also definitely be taking the opportunity of dancing on her grave, which should be constructed large enough to accommodate a good crowd and a bar and have flashing lights under the floor. The powers-that-be may try to forestall this by choosing an isolated, inaccessible spot, like Princess Diana's island in a lake, but enough people (and I'm sure there will be) could link arms and encircle it and perform a decent okey-cokey.
Failing that I'm sure there'll be a market for "Thatcher's Grave Dance Mats", compatible with PS3, Nintendo Wii or Xbox 360.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Foxymoron:
I'm sure there'll be a market for "Thatcher's Grave Dance Mats", compatible with PS3, Nintendo Wii or Xbox 360.
I'm going to run off and trademark that before ayone else does!
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
You could bet your buttons I could support even George Bush if he had to eject invaders from North Dakota. I cannot imagine the Tea Party pitching a tantrum about Obama driving out aggressors from Idaho.
Really, this Falkland business just indicates to me that many anti-Thatcherites (whathever they're called) have no perspective on the matters whatsoever. I can't raise the venom for a president from 3 years ago that I have seen on this thread for a woman that ran things 20 years ago. For pete's sake!
Zach
Posted by Bob Two-Owls (# 9680) on
:
Well Thatcher certainly seems more popular overseas than here so I propose we sell her corpse to the highest bidder.
I will be another grave-dancer should she be buried over here.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
Zach - some of us lived through her reign of terror, and have vivid memories of the suffering it caused. Some of us look around and see present suffering that is clearly a result of what she did. I know I should forgive her but, if I am honest, it is a struggle when I look at the lives of honest, hard working, people who were broken on the wheel of her ideology.
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Really, this Falkland business just indicates to me that many anti-Thatcherites (whathever they're called) have no perspective on the matters whatsoever.
It doesn't seem to me that the "anti-Thatcherites" are the ones hung up on the "Falkland business." If anything, I think the responses you've gotten so far have indicated the Falklands War was one of the less controversial aspects of her premiership. I certainly haven't seen anyone advocating a free pass for Argentina. Although I certainly share the bemusement at the willingness of segments of my colleagues on the left to embrace seemingly any manner of repressive dictator just to piss off Uncle Sam.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
It doesn't seem to me that the "anti-Thatcherites" are the ones hung up on the "Falkland business." If anything, I think the responses you've gotten so far have indicated the Falklands War was one of the less controversial aspects of her premiership. I certainly haven't seen anyone advocating a free pass for Argentina. Although I certainly share the bemusement at the willingness of segments of my colleagues on the left to embrace seemingly any manner of repressive dictator just to piss off Uncle Sam.
I didn't bring up the Falklands, and more than one person seemed to take Argentina's side in it all, so how does that make me hung up about anything? Yet other people have talked about her "Reign of terror" and compared her to Kim Jong Il. Right. And George Bush orchestrated 9/11 so Dick Cheney could invade Iraq. We, in western democracies, have such tyrants. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I’m not saying you gotta love the dame or say she wasn’t a terrible prime minister. You don’t have to support a state funeral for her, but it is about time to get over it and tone down the rhetoric. This sort of thing isn't healthy democratic discourse.
Zach
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
Let's not forget that Thatcher is buddy-buddy with Augusto Pinochet of Chile. For that alone, she should not receive a state funeral. There are mothers in Chile who still do not know what happened to their children who went missing during Pinochet's reign of terror. Her lack of sensitivity to that borders on the inhuman.
The only respect that she deserves is that I won't rejoice at her death. A state funeral would be disrespectful to all victims who suffered from both her policies and her indifference.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
Although I certainly share the bemusement at the willingness of segments of my colleagues on the left to embrace seemingly any manner of repressive dictator just to piss off Uncle Sam.
Judging by your link, a tiny segment indeed. Unless Marxist-Leninism is flourishing in Canada like nowhere else.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I feel disturbed regarding the amount of venom engendered by discussion of an elderly lady who was once a Prime Minister. I thought at first the comments had been made under the privilege of Hell posting, but no, they are part of what is supposed to be serious, balanced debate. I realise that I am not part of the British political scene, but would have thought that someone who served their country, even if not approved of universally, was deserving of more respect.
As you can see the British have always had a rather robust attitude towards their politicians! Even on the night when the polls closed for the 1987 election! A nation that might bow the knee to its monarch doesn't necessarily feel the need to tug the forelock at its prime minister. Least of all in this day and age.
Personally, I didn't like her or her politics. She seemed humourless and without compassion and her impressive autobiography - an excellent read on many levels - demonstrated an indomitable ego and dangerously unquestioning self-belief. I feel it's significant that the most 'human' response she ever let slip was when she shed tears, when she herself was forced out of the job at No. 10.
However, I thought she did a great job with the Falklands and in that arena, and possibly, too, in Europe, I think she proved herself a remarkable leader. Despite my own dislike of her, I would say she was undoubtedly one of the greatest politicians the UK has had. But I still don't think she should get a state funeral!
In a peculiar way it's almost to her credit that she can be both loathed and loved with such extreme emotion. One doesn't give a damn for the bland, the ineffective politician, who just functions, inspiring no deep feelings. But Thatcher meant something powerful - whether to her admirers or opponents.
I half doubt that it's possible to have lived through the Thatcher years, as some of us did at such crucial formative times of our lives, and not feel indelibly marked by her! Perhaps that's why some folks here find it hard to understand the depth of emotional response.
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on
:
Zach, if you were from the midlands or North of England, you would completely understand the anger of a generation of people thrown on the scrap heap by that woman and her policies of division and of knowing the price of everything And the value of nothing
True, it was a major historical change but with many victims that didn't need to be created
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
As you can see the British have always had a rather robust attitude towards their politicians! Even on the night when the polls closed for the 1987 election! A nation that might bow the knee to its monarch doesn't necessarily feel the need to tug the forelock at its prime minister.
It is just because the roles of ceremonial head of state and political leader are separate, that the British are able to be far more cynical about their politicians.
She is above all responsible for the privatization of national services which should exist for the benefit of all the population,not primarily the shareholders. That alone means she divides, not unites.
To think the Queen had to put up with her in private for half an hour each week...
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
Much of Thatcher's Industrial Policy was an act of revenge aimed at destroying the miners who had forced the Heath Government out of power.
Suggest her corpse is displayed in a tour of mining towns laid waste as a result of her industrial relations policies while the rest of us stood by and did nothing.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Much of Thatcher's Industrial Policy was an act of revenge aimed at destroying the miners who had forced the Heath Government out of power.
And fair enough, really. I always thought it was voters who forced governments out of power, not Communist trade union leaders.
Posted by Bax (# 16572) on
:
The comments on this topic are perhaps a good illustration of why state funerals should be restricted to Royalty.
I believe I am right in saying that Churchill was the first non-royal to have a state funeral. He was the leader of a government of national unity during WWII; all other prime minsters are prime minister by virtue of being leader of their party who have then won a majority (as indeed Churchill subsequently did in the 1950s).
Funerals should be about laying a person to rest, whether you agreed with them or not, not about "honouring" the dead. We do not worship our ancestors after all...
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Pierre Trudeau in Canada got a State Funeral; in Canada that means lying in state in the Hall of Honour in the Centre Block of Parliament Hill, your casket is draped in the flag and you get a Guard of Honour from the military or the RCMP (the Mounties use military ceremonial and have the status of a regiment of Dragoons).
Trudeau was divisive but he was Prime Minister for 16 years, including the 1980 Quebec Referendum and the 1982 Patriation of the Constitution.
Jack Layton, the recently deceased Leader of HM Loyal Opposition also got a State Funeral. I'm a member of his party but aside from the RCMP escort and lying in state in Parliament it really wasn't a State Funeral. It was fun but after some of the eulogists I think they are going to tighten up on the State Funeral rules.
My cubicle was once located down the hall from the State Ceremonial folks at Heritage, which is how I got to work a couple of state funerals (MWs passim). The families of current and former Governors General and Prime Ministers are as a rule offered a state funeral. In two cases, to my knowledge, the family had to be persuaded to agree.
The rules allow the offer to a family other prominent Canadians for whom a state funeral would be appropriate, in the opinion of the Government of Canada (I quote from memory).
In the Layton case, the offer to the family was made at the Prime Minister's initiative-- I might hear something about this in the next few weeks from some of those involved in the discussions. The funeral services themselves are determined by the family with the assistance of Canadian Heritage officials-- to deal with practical and protocol issues-- and a slew of folk from the PMO putting their oar in, as well as the RCMP who do the security stuff.
As far as Lady Thatcher goes, UKians seem to have a far more restrictive selection than the Canadians. But she's not dead yet, and may well outlive many of those discussing the topic.
[ 23. December 2011, 17:34: Message edited by: Augustine the Aleut ]
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Much of Thatcher's Industrial Policy was an act of revenge aimed at destroying the miners who had forced the Heath Government out of power.
And fair enough, really. I always thought it was voters who forced governments out of power, not Communist trade union leaders.
They weren't communists and it was the voters who, in the end, kicked the Tories out in 1974.
The reason for the order of the boot was the ineptitude of the Govt in dealing with the miners and power workers.
Give Thatcher the same kind of paupers funeral she gave to so many working class people.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Ken, can you explain the seeming serenity anti-Thatcher Brits have about Argentina freakin' invading British territory? I really don't understand it.
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Especially when the entire population of the island wanted to be British and wanted the Argentinians out.
First, if you find some lefties giving a free pass to the Argentinian dictatorship, feel free to ask them to explain themselves. No-one here is doing that
Second, as others have said its not about the Falklands. That had the side-effect of getting the Tories re-elected so its peripherally relevant, but its nothing to do with why the early 1980s governments were so divisive in Britain.
Third, maybe this is one of those things that if you don't get it you never are going to get it.
I think its mainly because of the divisivness, the deliberate setting of some people against others. And the unfairness. I think that once upon a time most British people really used to think that you were very likely to end up with a good job and a nice house and all those things if you studied hard and worked hard - obviously it was never totally true but it was kind of, on the whole, sort of, true. And then along comes 1979-1984 and its as if a magic wand was waved and one whole load of folk made poorer just so that others could be made richer. It was nothing to do with hard work or skills any more so much as which side of a series of arbitrary lines drawn in space and time you happened to find yourself.
Time maybe more important than space. The experience of starting out on adult life looking for work was very different for those who did it in the 1980s than it had been in the 1960s and 70s. In the 1960s and 70s lots of people felt guilty if they were unemployed. As if it was their fault that they hadn't shaped up in some way. In the 1980s we were more likely to feel angry. It wasn't something we did, or failed to do, it was something that was done to us.
And it was all quite deliberate. Anyone who cared could have read their intentions in Keith Joseph's writings way before they got into power. Other governments have blamed the world situation for unemployment, or the previous government. Thatcher's government deliberately and selectively used it as a tool of government power. They thought that wages were too high relative to profits, and so they wanted real wages to fall. The easy way to do that was to close down industries or companies they didn't like and to deliberately increase unemployment to generate incentives to work for lower wages.
In London that may well have worked - though it had terrible effects on local government, education, housing, and policing that we are still paying for now.
In some other parts of the country there was a time lag of something like four or five years so the age cohort looking for work between 1979 and about 1984 were artificially and deliberately kept unemployed. And of course those people never made up those wages. Over their lives they are always going to be that little bit poorer than those a few years older or younger than them are, on the whole.
Actually its worse than that because they also then got caught at the wrong side of the housing boom/bust cycle - if you bought your first house in the early 80s you were a lot better off on average than if you did in the late 80s. And the fiddled privatisations also worked to transfer real money from the poor and unemployed and those with low wages to the higher-paid.
In other parts, such as large sections of the north-east of England it never worked at all and the local economy didn't recover till the 1990s, after Thatcherism was gone. Hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, were deliberately put into hopeless economic situations as an example to others. The idea was that there had to be unemployment to scare the employed into accepting low wages, and into putting up with whatever shit the bosses wanted to give them at work.
It wasn't really about economics, it was about control, social engineering. It was like being in one of those psychological experiments where one load of subjects are arbitrarily labeled as prisoners and another set as guards and put in situations where they come into conflict.
[ 23. December 2011, 18:58: Message edited by: ken ]
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
All those who feel strongly about this topic might want to sign this petition. I did, and it made me feel better.
[ 23. December 2011, 19:18: Message edited by: Robert Armin ]
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, were deliberately put into hopeless economic situations as an example to others. The idea was that there had to be unemployment to scare the employed into accepting low wages, and into putting up with whatever shit the bosses wanted to give them at work.
It wasn't really about economics, it was about control, social engineering.
So, are you saying that Britain's parlous economic state at the end of the 1970s (a massive budget deficit, IMF loans, being regarded as the 'sick man of Europe', etc.) didn't actually concern Thatcher's government, who were mainly concerned with some barmy ideas about social engineering?
Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on
:
I'm with the grave dancers. I will postpone my celebration of her death long enough to chill or buy the champagne.
I realise that this may be seen as a very unchristian and uncharitable act but, like her, I don't care.
The catalogue goes on. The Falklands War; even if defending the islands was inevitable, she made political capital of it and I don't believe that sinking the Belgrano was necessary. Selling off Britain's social housing; gerrymandering on a national scale by turning renters into owners. The Poll Tax; removal of property taxes was part of the ideology. Sale of national natural monopolies; they sold off the TSB (bank) which didn't even belong to them. Creating unnatural markets where none existed, such as in the NHS. Supporting right-wing dictators and regimes all over the world; trading with apartheid South Africa was a major moral failing.
Australia has different criteria for state funerals, which are themselves more low key in any case. But Thatcher does not merit a British state funeral.
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
And fair enough, really. I always thought it was voters who forced governments out of power, not Communist trade union leaders.
They weren't communists and it was the voters who, in the end, kicked the Tories out in 1974.
And (slightly off-topic, apologies) it is often said that trade-unionism and the labour movement in Britain owed more to Methodism than Marxism.
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on
:
I'm in the dancing-on-grave category as well. What worries me is how the film 'The Iron Lady' might change the perception of Snatcher Thatcher for those who never suffered under her. It is somewhat hagiographic, I have heard.
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
Although I certainly share the bemusement at the willingness of segments of my colleagues on the left to embrace seemingly any manner of repressive dictator just to piss off Uncle Sam.
Judging by your link, a tiny segment indeed. Unless Marxist-Leninism is flourishing in Canada like nowhere else.
Well, I don't claim representative value for my sample: the circles I travel in are largely under 30 and/or Anglican so "my friends on the right" would be those who vote Liberal or Bloc.
As to the Layton example, it occurred to me at the time that the current political climate is really more of a diarchy: Layton might be thought of as more akin to Martin McGuinness than Ed Miliband (deo gratias) or John Boehner.
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
What Ken said. It was everything about her - the ideology, the inability to listen, the odious value system, the deification of ultra liberal capitalism, the complete lack of understanding of our cities.
Churchill rightly got a state funeral - he was a great leader. She was nothing like that - someone who shouted down anyone who expressed a contrary opinion, and whose banal ideology nearly destroyed the fabric of our society.
It's typical that Peter Lilley and his ilk are promoting this. Peter Oborne rightly recognised the divisiveness of this proposal.
If the Tories are unwise enough to pursue this, it will make a mockery of what should be a solemn occasion when a person is commended to God in the rites of the Church. Politicising such an event would be crassness.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
Layton might be thought of as more akin to Martin McGuinness than Ed Miliband ...
Bit of a tangent, but of course Layton never murdered anyone. But then neither did McGuinness. No no definitely not. Never. Any murdering was done by an entirely separate entity to himself. Entirely.
(This does not mean of course, that we should hold McGuinness's status as a former absolutely not murderer against him. I actually rather respect him now. But if he had been a murderer it would make his current status as a serious democratic politician all the more impressive. But then he was never a murderer. Oh no.)
[ 23. December 2011, 20:40: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Third, maybe this is one of those things that if you don't get it you never are going to get it.
I did come of age in George Bush's America you know- the first cohort in American history to see a decline in its quality of life compared to its parents. So I assure you the dislike of the policies and the person are entirely understandable, even if I continue to suspect more than a little exaggeration in the accounts. If only when the plots seem to sound like diabolical social warfare. The chronic rage over a government 20 years gone is what I can't really understand. In the very least people should be able to have a conversation about her without comparing her to Kim Jong Il and talking about dancing on her grave.
Let’s see how I feel about Bush in 20 years, I guess.
Zach
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun
What worries me is how the film 'The Iron Lady' might change the perception of Snatcher Thatcher for those who never suffered under her. It is somewhat hagiographic, I have heard.
It sounds a bit like 'The Strike' alias, Scargill, the Movie, although I think in that the pseudo-Meryl played Anne Scargill.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
Came across this and had completely forgotten about it! Even at 13 with no real knowledge of politics then, I remember thinking what a load of cobblers for a politician to come up with!
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on
:
I won't be dancing on Thatcher's grave.
But only - and I do mean only - because I wouldn't dance on anyone's grave. Ask not for whom the bell tolls...
The reason why her grave deserves to be danced on is because the concept so eloquently expressed in John Donne's words are completely alien to her. The truth of her pathetic (correctly used here) decline in her dotage is not an excuse for her past acts for which she has no remorse. People don't hate an elderly lady... many don't hate her personally (although of course many do). They hate what she did and what she stood for - and still stands for. Much as Lenin was still lauded after his death, so will Thatcher be. What she has become cannot possibly detract from what she was and did.
Ken described very well why she is so polarising and the fact that she left office over 20 years ago is a very little relevance because the effects of what she did are still seen and felt - and real - today. Interestingly, the Falklands' conflict is probably her least controversial act in office. Although, as others have pointed out the hypocrisy should not be ignored. Nor should she get the credit for the successful prosecution of that conflict without the deserved blame for not preventing it.
However all of this is off the point. It is rare that prime ministers are granted a state funeral. Sir Winston Churchill was the only one in the 20th century. Duke of Wellington, Lord Henry Palmerston and William Gladstone in the 19th.
There were specific reasons why those PM's were granted this posthumous honour, and even those who love her are struggling to even begin to make a case for her reaching such heights.
Whilst her having a state funeral would be something I could tolerate... (I wouldn't watch, I'd find something useful to do) It would make a statement about modern Britain which would prove Cameron fundamentally wrong. Granting Thatcher a state funeral would be an implicit statement of endorsement of Thatcherite divisiveness and neo-liberal economics. Such a country is definitely not Christian.
AFZ
Posted by Molopata The Rebel (# 9933) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vulpior:
The catalogue goes on. The Falklands War; even if defending the islands was inevitable, she made political capital of it and I don't believe that sinking the Belgrano was necessary. Selling off Britain's social housing; gerrymandering on a national scale by turning renters into owners. The Poll Tax; removal of property taxes was part of the ideology. Sale of national natural monopolies; they sold off the TSB (bank) which didn't even belong to them. Creating unnatural markets where none existed, such as in the NHS. Supporting right-wing dictators and regimes all over the world; trading with apartheid South Africa was a major moral failing.
And yet ... and yet subsequent governments, including Labour, did nothing to backtrack the core of her policies. She must, popularly speaking, have been doing something right in order for her opposition to feel it had to reinvent itself under the New Labour movement.
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Third, maybe this is one of those things that if you don't get it you never are going to get it.
...
Let’s see how I feel about Bush in 20 years, I guess.
Zach
It's not quite the same I think Zach. I don't think George W had nearly as much effect on the US domestic scene as Mrs. Thatcher had in the UK.
The Falklands conflict was not particularly divisive. The real crunch issue (as ken says) was the decision to withdraw government support from previously nationalised industries (coal, steel, transport) and allow large-scale unemployment as a consequence. The miners' strike of 1984/5 is highly significant: it is the most obvious example of how this policy was implemented in the teeth of fierce opposition.
Her admirers - of whom there are many, especially in the South - see her as the saviour of Britain, sweeping away socialism, union power and inefficient industry and replacing it with a competitive, prosperous, service-based economy. They feel the 1970s were a disaster (Anglican't has briefly outlined a few reasons why) and see Maggie much as US Republicans seem to see Ronald Reagan.
Her detractors - of whom there are many, especially in the North - see her as having ripped out the heart and soul of British industry and society, turning self-respecting working communities into hopeless wastelands of long-term unemployment and deprivation. They feel the 1980s were a disaster from which Britain has never recovered and that Maggie was primarily responsible.
I think the centre of political gravity is rather further to the right in the US than in the UK (or, even more, the rest of Europe) and so it is difficult to appreciate how radical and divisive her changes were at the time. And part of her legacy was to shift the mainstream of British politics so that (as Molopata says) no-one has really tried to undo them. They're probably not undo-able anyway - you can't recreate a flooded coalmine or dead mill town by fiat.
In short - no state funeral. You might love her or hate her - or even ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
have a mixed view of her - but there's no way she could be called a unifying figure.
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on
:
Why not simply do what you normally do when a former PM passes away? If the past provides contrasting examples, then perhaps it is time for the government to establish an official norm.
[From this American's point of view, I see no problem with having an official service for any former head of government. I have no problem with any presidents from the past--even those with whom I strongly disagreed--having such a service.]
Posted by Antisocial Alto (# 13810) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The chronic rage over a government 20 years gone is what I can't really understand. In the very least people should be able to have a conversation about her without comparing her to Kim Jong Il and talking about dancing on her grave.
Let’s see how I feel about Bush in 20 years, I guess.
Zach
Zach, I think some Americans of our parents' generation felt chronic rage about Nixon and other Vietnam-era politicians until pretty recently. Now that Sept. 11 and subsequent events are a more recent trauma, it doesn't seem that people talk about Vietnam as much, but I remember throughout the 1990s having history teachers, family friends, etc who were still furious about it.
About looking back on GWB, Iraq and Afghanistan, a lot fewer of us have been directly involved in it than our parents were in Vietnam. We would probably be a lot angrier if we'd been at any risk of getting drafted.
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
Why not simply do what you normally do when a former PM passes away? If the past provides contrasting examples, then perhaps it is time for the government to establish an official norm.
[From this American's point of view, I see no problem with having an official service for any former head of government. I have no problem with any presidents from the past--even those with whom I strongly disagreed--having such a service.]
I agree. Is there some lower level of 'state funeral' in the UK which is not a State Funeral as applying to the Monarch and the other exceptional cases like Churchill?
In Australia the custom of offering a state funeral or state memorial service is very different, it's not something reserved only for the Head of State like in the UK. All former Premiers, Prime Ministers, Governors, Governors-General pretty well automatically apply even if aspects of their incumbency were controversial, for example Joh Bielke-Petersen in Queensland who made Thatcher look moderate. Other distinguished citizens may be offered a state funeral/memorial at the discretion of the state Governor, which would in practice usually be on a regularly-updated list also agreed to by the Premier and Leader of the Opposition.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
What Turquoise Tastic said. Besides, she was a party leader playing an ephemeral role on the stage at one point in political history; just as Tony Blair would do later. The case of Churchill was rather a one off, I think. This is not to say that Thatcher's leadership didn't produce enormous changes in British political structure and society. However, the entire body politic doesn't judge those changes, on the whole, to have been meritorious: some do, some don't. Honouring this former PM with a state funeral just is not appropriate.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
Churchill was a useless leader in peacetime, swapping parties twice to expedite political advancement.
He wasn't that bright a war time leader - rather becoming a figurehead following a desperate clutching at straws when the alternatives (Chamberlain - the appeaser; Halifax - the fascist aristocrat; Attlee - the Socialist) were all too wacky to contemplate.
Churchill was fortunate in having soem good military leaders around him and the extent to which he contributed to plans and policies is debateable. After the war he wanted reconstruction but back to the 1930's ways of living: he opposed the NHS and other social reforms.
In fact there's eveidence (suppressed) at the time that he was booed as he travelled around.
Therefore it's debateable IMHO whether Churchill should have had a state funeral. It's more a sign of the Queen's affection for him as he was the one who waited for her at Heathrow Airport in 1952 to the UK on her father's death.
Thatcher certainly shouldn't have one.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:
and yet subsequent governments, including Labour, did nothing to backtrack the core of her policies. She must, popularly speaking, have been doing something right in order for her opposition to feel it had to reinvent itself under the New Labour movement.
Yes, she was doing the right thing. But it represented the (inevitable and necessary) end of the Socialist dream, and for that the Socialists hate her.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Yes, she was doing the right thing. But it represented the (inevitable and necessary) end of the Socialist dream, and for that the Socialists hate her.
Not in my case. My dislike is more personal. It was Thatcher and her ministers who made education the bureaucratic mess it now is.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Boogie is that entirely fair? It's 21 years since she fell. It's rather fairer to lay the blame now on the Major and Blair-Brown administrations. A lot of the 'everything must be measurable', tick-box stuff is really attributable to the latter, which was also the one that may not have invented PFI but took it up with an unthinking gusto.
All done by smoking mirrors as long as it's off balance sheet.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
It was Thatcher who began the "tinkering with education to show we're doing something" mania. Enoch is right to say that her succesors have continued in this but she started the rot - as in so many other areas.
Posted by otyetsfoma (# 12898) on
:
She apparently thought that service and financial businesses were just as profitable as manufacturing. Manufacturing had made the UK rich, and its financial success was based on its wealth. She managed to weaken our manufacturing industry to the benefit of Germany and other EU "partners"( really "rivals"). Blair made the horrible mistake of following her policies.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
All PMs who followed made the horrible mistake of following her policies.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I may be exposing my ignorance, but how did Thatcher help bring down the Iron Curtain?...(And why does Thatcher get more credit than, say, Lech Wałęsa or Václav Havel?)
Walesa and Havel were important symbols who went on to become important in other ways, but they didn't have the kind of clout that Thatcher and Reagan had. Together, they were able to lead the Western democracies in a policy that successfully pressured the Soviets in ways that a courageous labor leader or poet could not do.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I may be exposing my ignorance, but how did Thatcher help bring down the Iron Curtain?...(And why does Thatcher get more credit than, say, Lech Wałęsa or Václav Havel?)
Walesa and Havel were important symbols who went on to become important in other ways, but they didn't have the kind of clout that Thatcher and Reagan had. Together, they were able to lead the Western democracies in a policy that successfully pressured the Soviets in ways that a courageous labor leader or poet could not do.
I believe the general historical view is that it was the utter inefficiency of the Soviet system that ultimately led to its collapse. Thatcher and Reagan had limited effect on the fall of Communism, despite what their supporters say.
But I would say that Thatcher and Reagan replaced the horror of Soviet Communism with the horror of neo-liberal capitalism. Just because its a different type of kool-aid doesn't negate the fact that it's still kool-aid.
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I believe the general historical view is that it was the utter inefficiency of the Soviet system that ultimately led to its collapse. Thatcher and Reagan had limited effect on the fall of Communism, despite what their supporters say.
But I would say that Thatcher and Reagan replaced the horror of Soviet Communism with the horror of neo-liberal capitalism. ...
Yes, the Soviet system was utterly inefficient (socialism always is), although still able to brutalize its populace - but Reagan and Thatcher gave the push that the rotten system needed to topple.
I'm not sure what you mean by "neo-liberal capitalism." Russia was and is utterly corrupt, although there now seem to be signs that the rising generation has had enough of that.
Capitalism is essentially a benign system that rewards hard work and investment. Perhaps you're thinking of corporatism, which is just as bad as socialism, but in the other direction.
Posted by chive (# 208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Capitalism is essentially a benign system that rewards hard work and investment. Perhaps you're thinking of corporatism, which is just as bad as socialism, but in the other direction.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
So wrong in so many ways. Capitalism serves money. Nothing else.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Capitalism is essentially a benign system that rewards hard work and investment.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
But the ones who get the reward aren't usually those who do the hard work.
[ 24. December 2011, 17:21: Message edited by: Angloid ]
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I believe the general historical view is that it was the utter inefficiency of the Soviet system that ultimately led to its collapse. Thatcher and Reagan had limited effect on the fall of Communism, despite what their supporters say.
But I would say that Thatcher and Reagan replaced the horror of Soviet Communism with the horror of neo-liberal capitalism. ...
Yes, the Soviet system was utterly inefficient (socialism always is), although still able to brutalize its populace - but Reagan and Thatcher gave the push that the rotten system needed to topple.
I'm not sure what you mean by "neo-liberal capitalism." Russia was and is utterly corrupt, although there now seem to be signs that the rising generation has had enough of that.
Capitalism is essentially a benign system that rewards hard work and investment. Perhaps you're thinking of corporatism, which is just as bad as socialism, but in the other direction.
The ideological belief that cutting taxes for the wealthy magically creates economic wealth and prosperity for all is about as scientifically defensible as the Soviet belief that every industry should be run by central planning.
Reagan and Thatcher were no more "rational" than their Soviet counterparts. In some ways, they were less so, because Gorbachev came to realize that Soviet socialism as practiced in Russia didn't work.
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
I get riled beyond measure by the champagne socialists who mouth support for the cause but who would not give up an ounce of their lifestyle for the sake of the cause.
Many of them were in the last Govt and still hold power in todays Opposition.
I am not a Thatcherite. But I wonder at the socialism which meant that, under the last Labour Govt, the gap between rich and poor widened as never before.
[ 24. December 2011, 17:33: Message edited by: shamwari ]
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
Ross, it's cute that you believe that. Naive, but cute.
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on
:
Pope John Paul II was more responsible as an "outside figure with inside connections" in the toppling of Communism then Thatcher or Reagan (I just those Reagan revisionists) along with the system's inward contradictions and tyranny
Let's remember also that democratic socialists were usually the first victims of the Communists and among the first sent to the camps
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
I am not a Thatcherite. But I wonder at the socialism which meant that, under the last Labour Govt, the gap between rich and poor widened as never before.
I don't think that was even socialism. Blair made a better Thatcherite than some members of her own cabinets.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
Why not simply do what you normally do when a former PM passes away?
Which would be nothing at all, pretty much. Their friends and family organise a funeral, to which they sometimes (but not always) invite current politicians. A few weeks later there might be a memorial service in London.
At least seven Prime Ministers other than Churchill have died in my lifetime. As far as I know five of them had quiet funerals near their homes, and two were buried in London, but none had large-scale public funerals.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
Also I'm reasonably convinced that the corrupt and useless Soviet empire would have collapsed sooner if Reagan and his friends had backed off a bit. It was killed by internal pressures, and required fear of a foreign enemy to totter on into the 1970s and 1980s. By presenting it with a credible threat, the newly militant US/NATO alliance gave it an excuse to continue to exist.
People like Havel - and millions of ordinary Eastern Europeans - are the reason it finally failed. If any politicians are responsible it was the governments of Hungary and Poland and some of the smaller Soviet Republics such as Estonia and Armenia. The USA and UK were helpless observers at the collapse of the Soviet Union.
And Thatcher actively opposed the reunification of Germany. She didn't bring the Berlin wall down, she was one of the many who failed to keep it up.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Also I'm reasonably convinced that the corrupt and useless Soviet empire would have collapsed sooner if Reagan and his friends had backed off a bit. It was killed by internal pressures, and required fear of a foreign enemy to totter on into the 1970s and 1980s. By presenting it with a credible threat, the newly militant US/NATO alliance gave it an excuse to continue to exist.
People like Havel - and millions of ordinary Eastern Europeans - are the reason it finally failed. If any politicians are responsible it was the governments of Hungary and Poland and some of the smaller Soviet Republics such as Estonia and Armenia. The USA and UK were helpless observers at the collapse of the Soviet Union.
And Thatcher actively opposed the reunification of Germany. She didn't bring the Berlin wall down, she was one of the many who failed to keep it up.
Feel free to correct me, but I read somewhere that before the Soviet regime collapsed, Reagan and Thatcher were perfectly fine with continuing the detente policy of previous American administrations in their relationship with the Soviet Union. The notion that Reagan and Thatcher were great Cold War warriors, passionate in their moral opposition to Soviet Communism is more myth than reality.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
quote:
Capitalism is essentially a benign system that rewards hard work and investment.
I was thinking about this as I fell asleep last night, and marvelling at the way the Ship opens my eyes to different points of view. From my perspective, Capitalism is the law of the jungle, where might makes right and the strong crush the weak. Socialism, again from my POV, is the attempt to act in a civilised way, and to treat everyone fairly, no matter how weak they may be.
But none of that prevents from wishing Ross (and all the many people who disagree with me) a very blessed Christmas. And, especially in Ross' case, prayers for continued healing in the new year. ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
I get riled beyond measure by the champagne socialists who mouth support for the cause but who would not give up an ounce of their lifestyle for the sake of the cause.
Many of them were in the last Govt and still hold power in todays Opposition.
I am not a Thatcherite. But I wonder at the socialism which meant that, under the last Labour Govt, the gap between rich and poor widened as never before.
Feel free to be riled, but your righteous indignation is at-least partially misplaced. I haven't got the reference to hand but your assertion of the role the last Labour government had in terms of widening inequality is wrong.
It's wrong because the widening of the gap didn't accelerate, it slowed. And specifically areas such as child-poverty that the government chose to target saw significant reductions in inequality.
You can argue that the government didn't do enough about inequality (and I would) but it is innacurate to say they prosided over a worsening situation willinging.
AFZ
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
I said the gap widened.
You say it simply slowed.
Which makes my assertion quite correct.
It was wider at the end than at the beginning. It could have been wider still had it not slowed.
In my language slow does not equal reverse.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Capitalism is essentially a benign system that rewards hard work and investment.
Capitalism rewards investment. That's why it's called capitalism. It doesn't reward hard work. It exploits hard work. That's why it's not called labourism.
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
I said the gap widened.
You say it simply slowed.
Which makes my assertion quite correct.
It was wider at the end than at the beginning. It could have been wider still had it not slowed.
In my language slow does not equal reverse.
Ok.
As I said, you asserted that the previous Labour government were champagne socialist for a widening of the inquality gap 'as never before'
Whilst I feel the government did not do enough, they slowed this widening and in specific areas that they chose to target - such as children - they reversed it.
So, the idea that the government of the day did not care about this problem and are guilty of hipocrisy - because surely that's what 'champagne socialism' means - is misplaced. They were able to reverse this problem in the areas they chose to target.
You can argue they didn't do enough (as I do) but to argue that they couldn't be bothered is simply not true.
So your assertion that the previous government saw inequality widen as never before is falacious.
AFZ
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Capitalism rewards investment. That's why it's called capitalism. It doesn't reward hard work. It exploits hard work. That's why it's not called labourism.
Someone who starts a business, works hard, reinvests her capital in the business and rewards the employees and investors who have made it possible is a capitalist.
Someone who thinks that all benefits should flow to employees at the top of the heap while squeezing the people below is a corporatist.
Someone who thinks that the benefits should flow primarily to people who have not contributed in any way, at the expense of the people who made it all happen, is a socialist.
I prefer an enlightened capitalism, with a reasonable amount of regulation and what we might call a Christian sense of morality.
Corporatists are just as big a problem, in my view, as are socialists and other tax-and-spend leftists. They both squeeze the middle class in boa constrictor fashion. At least the socialists can claim they're doing it for the common good.
Anyway, a happy Christmas to you all, whatever your political views may be. (And thank you, Robert Armin!)
Ross
Posted by 205 (# 206) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
marvelling at the way the Ship opens my eyes to different points of view.
From my perspective, Capitalism is the law of the jungle, where might makes right and the strong crush the weak. Socialism, again from my POV, is the attempt to act in a civilised way, and to treat everyone fairly, no matter how weak they may be.
But none of that prevents from wishing Ross (and all the many people who disagree with me) a very blessed Christmas. And, especially in Ross' case, prayers for continued healing in the new year.
Amen.
And my extra special best to all of you commie pinko types!
God knows you need all the help you can get.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Even Palmerston is a bit of a question mark as his main achievements were not as PM.
Does getting away with raping a lady-in-waiting qualify as a "main achievement"?
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I believe Our Lord Jesus Christ will tell her "Yes, Maggie, there is such a thing as 'society'", when she enters into the next life.
If you believe that, you'll believe anything.
I thought I was fairly inured to the trivialization of the faith in the interests of parochial partisan politics, but that just about takes the cake.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by 205:
[QUOTE] Capitalism is the law of the jungle, where might makes right and the strong crush the weak.
It would be difficult to come up with a better definition of communism.
There are two striking feature about this thread.
The first is the naïve doctrinaire simplisticism of the definitions of capitalism, a system which like democracy, is just the least bad of all the systems on offer, exists everywhere in a state of extensive modification by government regulations and welfare measures, has probably never existed in a pure form, and certainly was never even remotely “unfettered” under Thatcher.
To say that capitalism is about nothing but greed and money is as silly as saying that socialism is about nothing but envy and omnipotent bureaucracy.
The second is the vicious and visceral hatred directed against the (almost late) Thatcher compared with the ho-hum cerebral analysis (or even mere registration) of the recent demise of the late Kim Jong-Il, responsible for the avoidable starvation of 1-2 million of his subject citizens, and for the oppression, imprisonment, enslavement, torture and execution of countless others.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
You are, of course, entitled to your opinions. However, in the pursuit of accuracy, I have to say that the quite you offer comes from me, and not 205. Please do not blame anyone else for my simplistic shortcomings.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
Mea culpa.
Apologies to both of you.
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I believe Our Lord Jesus Christ will tell her "Yes, Maggie, there is such a thing as 'society'", when she enters into the next life.
If you believe that, you'll believe anything.
Well, surely we expect to "know even as we are known"?
Posted by Inger (# 15285) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The second is the vicious and visceral hatred directed against the (almost late) Thatcher compared with the ho-hum cerebral analysis (or even mere registration) of the recent demise of the late Kim Jong-Il, responsible for the avoidable starvation of 1-2 million of his subject citizens, and for the oppression, imprisonment, enslavement, torture and execution of countless others.
The point here (and I always find it odd that one should have to point it out in cases like this) is that Mrs Thatcher was our monster. Unlike Kim Jong-Il.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Capitalism rewards investment. That's why it's called capitalism. It doesn't reward hard work. It exploits hard work. That's why it's not called labourism.
Someone who starts a business, works hard, reinvests her capital in the business and rewards the employees and investors who have made it possible is a capitalist.
Someone who thinks that all benefits should flow to employees at the top of the heap while squeezing the people below is a corporatist.
I don't think that corporatism is used in that way in standard discussions of economics. Nor is socialism.
What happens if someone starts a business is that they go to the banks asking the banks to invest capital in the business. The banks invest capital in the business and the banks get the reward for their investment.
The point of capitalism is that the economy is structured around capital. Ok - capitalism - capital. Some people have capital to invest: if they invest it they get a return on it. They don't necessarily start businesses themselves; the banks don't start businesses. In effect they hire other people to start businesses for them.
People who don't have any capital to invest do not get a return on any investment. They get employed by the people investing capital. (Or they are unemployed.) Rewarding employees beyond what is necessary to retain employees diminishes the return upon investment and is therefore not strictly speaking capitalist. It's a sign that the business is being run more like a co-operative. To the extent that the business is a co-operative it is socialist.
Socialism is a belief that everyone contributing to society either directly or indirectly should receive a share of the benefits.
A digression on labour economics. High demand increases prices; high supply lowers prices. If there are a lot of jobs and not many people looking for work then the price of labour goes up. If there are a lot of people looking for work and not much work for them to do then the price of labour goes down. So if there are a lot of unemployed people then every business can keep its salary cost down. This means that they make a greater return on their investment. If those unemployed people went away the businesses would have to pay more and would be less successful. Thus every unemployed person who is looking for work is contributing to the success of every business.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Inger:
The point here (and I always find it odd that one should have to point it out in cases like this) is that Mrs Thatcher was our monster. Unlike Kim Jong-Il.
We all agree that murdering hundreds of thousands of people is worse than kicking someone in the balls. But when someone kicks me in my balls I still feel entitled to resent it.
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
To say that capitalism is about nothing but greed and money is as silly as saying that socialism is about nothing but envy and omnipotent bureaucracy.
As someone said years ago: quote:
In capitalism man exploits man, whereas in socialism it is the other way round.
The core problem is people, particularly those in positions of power. I'm sorry if that sounds jaundiced at the season of goodwill.
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
Comparing Margaret Thatcher to Kim Jong Il is like the(too frequently made and astoundingly serious) comparisons of Joe McCarthy to Joe Stalin. Ask the True Believer "And how many people died under McCarthyism?" and you will be treated to an epic snit.
But the two (Thatcher vs Kim, McCarthy vs Stalin) really are not comparable, in either case. You can deplore their policies, and their effect on the people that they hurt, but let's keep a sense of proportion, please.
Dafyd, I wasn't speaking of economics as taught in school, and I would have thought you would notice that.
I was referring to the practical economics of our day, in which the hard-working, careful small business owner is allowed to fail due to the shenanigans of bloated giant corporations. The latter are allowed to misbehave and then bailed out by the taxpayers - while their CEOs and co-conspirators take home billions. Small businesses are the backbone of this country, at least; Citibank et al... not so much.
[edited to respond to Dafyd in the same post. Economical, yes?]
[ 26. December 2011, 14:48: Message edited by: Rossweisse ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
But the two (Thatcher vs Kim, McCarthy vs Stalin) really are not comparable, in either case. You can deplore their policies, and their effect on the people that they hurt, but let's keep a sense of proportion, please.
It's no use. Some people can't be rational about her. I hope the denizens of this thread will forgive me for saying so.
Zach
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
I was referring to the practical economics of our day, in which the hard-working, careful small business owner is allowed to fail due to the shenanigans of bloated giant corporations. The latter are allowed to misbehave and then bailed out by the taxpayers - while their CEOs and co-conspirators take home billions.
If that's what you're objecting to, you need to work out who your allies are. People who actually call themselves socialists (i.e. ken) are on your side. People who defend their proposed policies by warning you against socialism and praising capitalism are not on your side.
(And if capitalism just means whatever economic policies the speaker prefers it's a fairly meaningless word.)
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
I think that the comparisons between unpopular home politicians and foreign dictators becomes a bit less reprehensible if you consider the foreign and the home bit. While McCarthy wasn't in Stalin's league in terms of harm done globally, it's at the very least arguable that he and his admirers did more harm to the US than admirers of Stalin.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
Ross, I agree with you completely when you say: quote:
I was referring to the practical economics of our day, in which the hard-working, careful small business owner is allowed to fail due to the shenanigans of bloated giant corporations. The latter are allowed to misbehave and then bailed out by the taxpayers - while their CEOs and co-conspirators take home billions. Small businesses are the backbone of this country, at least; Citibank et al... not so much.
But I see this as capitalism supporting capitalists. To me, socialism is all about protecting the little people.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
But I see this as capitalism supporting capitalists. To me, socialism is all about protecting the little people.
To me they are both ultimately exercises in godlessness. Christianity may speak one way or another on a particular issue, but political ideologies are irrelevant.
Zach
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think that the comparisons between unpopular home politicians and foreign dictators becomes a bit less reprehensible if you consider the foreign and the home bit. While McCarthy wasn't in Stalin's league in terms of harm done globally, it's at the very least arguable that he and his admirers did more harm to the US than admirers of Stalin.
Well, it's arguable if you just want to have an argument, but not if you take a good hard look at history.
McCarthy was loathesome, but the worst harm he did was to ruin a few careers. That's certainly reprehensible, but it fades into insignificance when you think of what "admirers of Stalin" did: for starters, they made sure that we came into World War II as allies of the Soviets, rather than as co-belligerents.
That meant that we actively supported the Soviets with money and materiel, and then condemned half of Europe to their tender care, resulting in untold misery and death. We didn't protest the fact that thousands of German POWs spent the rest of their lives in Soviet prison camps, or even that some Allied soldiers did. And that's just one example.
Remind me again...how many thousands were starved, imprisoned, or killed in Margaret Thatcher's brutal, totalitarian Britain to put her into the league of a Kim Jong Il?
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on
:
My Communist friends are typically unmoved by efforts to instigate a body count competition.
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
Well, of course, LQ, they would be. However, it seems like a rather cheap cop-out when comparing a Thatcher to a Kim, or a McCarthy to a Stalin.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
Ross
He taught people outside the US that those inside the US can be dangerously neurotic.
You say that did not harm the US when it is a superpower and needs to be trusted?
Jengie
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
I'm not sure that anyone here has compared Thatcher to Kim or Stalin; if they did, I've missed it. I think I've made it clear that I don't like the woman, but she wasn't in their league. However, I'm not convinced it's a ringing endorsement of her policies to say she didn't do as much harm as the worst dictators in recent history.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
I've never been convinced that 'capitalism' is an 'ism' in its own right, rather than just a word to described the economics you have if you don't have any other sort of 'ism'.
If we go back to Ma T though, and try and be rational about her, it seems to me we have the following.
1. Very few non-royals have been given state funerals. Those that have, have been given them for really outstanding achievements, usually in war in which the homeland has been threatened, Nelson, Wellington, Haig, Churchill, have been given them for as war leaders. The odd one out is Lord Carson. That appears to have been specific to circumstances in Northern Ireland. It is some years ago now, but one suspects it was divisive.
2. On the + side,
a. She gave people the spine to fight back and win when the Argentinians invaded the Falklands.
b. She brought to an end the chaos, turmoil, decadence and indiscipline that was Britain in the 1970s. If one can remember those times, they were dreadful. No one in their right mind would like to go there again. That was bound to be unpleasant and involve some bruised heads. Whether somebody else could have done it better, or what would have happened if nobody had had the determination to take on the job we shall never know. But it had to be done.
People should be grateful for these two achievements.
3. On the - side,
a. She destroyed a lot of peoples' lives and a lot of communities. Some of her most enthusiastic supporters would say that was the only way of achieving 2(b), that it was the price that had to be paid, or even that such people by their behaviour merited being treated as unpeople anyway. Most of us though would prefer to hope that this is not the case, and that 2(b) could have been achived in a less destructive way.
b. As a by-product of 2(b), the method she chose was destructive of a lot of material industrial capital. The jury is still out on whether this was necessary or a colossal waste of accumulative national assets.
c. There is a widespread and probably justified impression that aspects of her ideology have had a profoundly negative effect on the concepts of public spiritedness and public duty that underlay both paid and voluntary public service prior to the 1980s.
d. A lot of the programmes associated with her name have not worked well. Selling shares in former nationalised industries has not produced a share owning democracy. Even the ones that have been on balance a good thing, such as bus deregulation, could have been handled better.
e. Whatever the eventual outcome of devolution, the way she handled the poll tax has very materially increased centripetal forces that work for the dissolution of the union.
3. There is and remains legitimate debate as to whether privatisation is a good thing or not, to what it should and shouldn't be applied, and indeed, what beyond the military, police and courts is best made the responsibility of the state. Whatever their opinions on individual portfolios, most of the public would place more things in the state sphere than dogmatic Thatcherites would. So in addition to the hatreds generated by 3(a), 21 years after her fall, she is still associated with highly disputed political argument.
4. Likening Lady Thatcher to Stalin, Kim Jung-il or their ilk is disproportionate. It demonstrates that a person has the good fortune never to have experienced despotism, yet alone tyranny and lacks the imagination to understand what they are like.
5. A state funeral should only be given in respect of someone that the public at large, rather than their family, friends and supporters, will genuinely wish to mourn. Irrespective of the Falklands, awarding one to someone who is associated with controversy, and whom a large people will not want to mourn, would be divisive. It would be a misuse of power. It is treating the public like North Koreans, an attempt by one faction to impose their emotions on everyone else.
6. It would be likely to provoke demonstrations, which would be disrespectful of the dead.
7. Whether one approves of her or detests her, objectively, Lady Thatcher was in the upper quartile of prime ministers, but against the long tide of history, is not ranked among the great.
What do people think of this summary? As I said in my OP, I'm not as rabidly anti her as a lot of people are. Nor though am I among those who adulate her. I hope I haven't abandoned my critical faculties in either direction.
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
I'm not sure that anyone here has compared Thatcher to Kim or Stalin...
Well, Inger wrote:
quote:
...Mrs Thatcher was our monster. Unlike Kim Jong-Il.
I brought in the nudniks who compare McCarthy to Stalin, to which Dafyd replied:
quote:
...While McCarthy wasn't in Stalin's league in terms of harm done globally, it's at the very least arguable that he and his admirers did more harm to the US than admirers of Stalin.
Margaret Thatcher wasn't even in the same game as Kim, let alone his league. McCarthy was a Little Leaguer compared to Stalin. Perspective, people, perspective!
As Enoch wrote,
quote:
Likening Lady Thatcher to Stalin, Kim Jung-il or their ilk is disproportionate. It demonstrates that a person has the good fortune never to have experienced despotism, yet alone tyranny and lacks the imagination to understand what they are like.
I would endorse this from Enoch, too:
quote:
She brought to an end the chaos, turmoil, decadence and indiscipline that was Britain in the 1970s. If one can remember those times, they were dreadful. No one in their right mind would like to go there again. That was bound to be unpleasant and involve some bruised heads. Whether somebody else could have done it better, or what would have happened if nobody had had the determination to take on the job we shall never know. But it had to be done.
Get back to the original question: Should she have a state funeral? The answer is clearly "No," for all the reasons that Enoch has given in his excellent summary.
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
I'm not sure that anyone here has compared Thatcher to Kim or Stalin...
Well, Inger wrote:
quote:
...Mrs Thatcher was our monster. Unlike Kim Jong-Il.
I brought in the nudniks who compare McCarthy to Stalin, to which Dafyd replied:
quote:
...While McCarthy wasn't in Stalin's league in terms of harm done globally, it's at the very least arguable that he and his admirers did more harm to the US than admirers of Stalin.
Margaret Thatcher wasn't even in the same game as Kim, let alone his league. McCarthy was a Little Leaguer compared to Stalin. Perspective, people, perspective!
I assume Robert meant a substantive disagreement, as opposed to people broadly in agreement with you but differing over the correct choice of sport analogy (which I gladly defer to those more knowledgeable!) As Robert and Inger point out, it's hardly as if we generally wait for rulers to run as seriously afoul as Kim or Stalin before we speak out.
Plus, it would make sense in light of the respective systems that in a tyranny with a centralized economy, the deaths that result would be centrally decided or ordered. That under capitalism death is privately contracted, like everything else, and Joe McCarthy merely the apologist for the death-dealers, is not, I think, a particularly high compliment to Joe McCarthy. And even then I doubt Reagan would come off particularly well if the totals from his various foreign interventions were tallied. I'm not sure why it's inherently more virtuous to be cosy with right-wing dictators than left-wing ones.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
And even then I doubt Reagan would come off particularly well if the totals from his various foreign interventions were tallied. I'm not sure why it's inherently more virtuous to be cosy with right-wing dictators than left-wing ones.
Foreign interventions are not wrong in themselves unless you are a doctrinaire isolationist, and making temporary pragmatic alliances with dictators (such as the West’s with Stalin against Hitler, or later with “our sonsofbitches” against communists) is not wrong in itself unless you have a scruple against realpolitik per se.
The practicality and ethics of each intervention and alliance has to be decided on a case by case basis.
The overriding (but not only) issue is whether the system being defended is liberal and democratic.
It is moronic to draw the slightest equivalence between Thatcher and a tyrant such as Kim Jong-Il by referring to them both as “monsters”.
Kim Jong-Il was a monster.
Thatcher was just another politician who got in democratically with a vote about the same as that of Salvador Allende (whose legitimacy is not attacked on the basis of his minority percentage), carried out policies which some decent, reasonable people supported and others didn’t., and eventually departed in accordance with the same democratic system.
I am not sure how the admittedly unpleasant Joe McCarthy finished up in the discussion, but given that he was responsible for the death of one innocent (probably) victim in Ethel Rosenberg, plus a few disrupted showbiz careers, it is bizarre to try to equate him with the murderers of millions such as Stalin.
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
...As Robert and Inger point out, it's hardly as if we generally wait for rulers to run as seriously afoul as Kim or Stalin before we speak out.
Oh, dear. Are you suggesting that Margaret Thatcher would have "run as seriously afoul as Kim or Stalin" had she had the opportunity?
quote:
...That under capitalism death is privately contracted ...
I beg your pardon? Would you care to explicate? I've somehow missed the part where giant corporations started running death camps in the US, UK, and other "capitalist" countries.
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
...As Robert and Inger point out, it's hardly as if we generally wait for rulers to run as seriously afoul as Kim or Stalin before we speak out.
Oh, dear. Are you suggesting that Margaret Thatcher would have "run as seriously afoul as Kim or Stalin" had she had the opportunity?
I'm questioning the assumption that she has to. By your logic, if I'm ever charged with murder, or some other indictable offence, I can plead not guilty on the grounds that I haven't "entered Kim country"?
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
I've somehow missed the part where giant corporations started running death camps in the US, UK, and other "capitalist" countries.
You may have; plenty have not. Of course, it's easier to miss when it's not anything as dramatically satisfying as a centrally-controlled death camp. That's my point: capitalism diffuses.
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
...By your logic, if I'm ever charged with murder, or some other indictable offence, I can plead not guilty on the grounds that I haven't "entered Kim country"?
What is that supposed to mean?
quote:
...it's not anything as dramatically satisfying as a centrally-controlled death camp. That's my point: capitalism diffuses.
The BBC story is the only thing here that warrants another look. We've got a report on cigarette marketing, something from a conspiracy site - and something from a a former Sandinista official who would rather make accusations than have his own regime's track record in human rights violations examined.
Margaret Thatcher was not a monster. She was not a murderer. She was lightyears from being a Kim. You just didn't like her policies. Can you see how absurd your accusations are becoming?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
So are there any shipmates out there who are prepared to stick their necks out and say they think she should have a state funeral when in due course she does go the way of Ninevah, Tyre and Kim Jong-il. Or are we all agreed that assessing this using UK parameters and conventions, she shouldn't?
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
...Or are we all agreed that assessing this using UK parameters and conventions, she shouldn't?
Agreed.
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Can you see how absurd your accusations are becoming?
Since it's not altogether clear to me yet whether the accusations you attribute to me are ones I in fact care to make, I couldn't say. I certainly don't think you need to stick a knife in someone's back physically to be complicit in a wrongful death, much less to be a wicked ruler. That Baroness Thatcher has not committed felony murder may be sufficient to you to absolve her from monstrosity, but not to the "reasonable person" of legal doctrine. I think those whose livelihoods were ruined by the collapse of British manufacturing, or those who were "disappeared" by Pinochet's regime would probably say "monstrous" about sums up the legacy of her policies.
[ 27. December 2011, 18:53: Message edited by: LQ ]
Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on
:
If Thatcher were given a State Funeral I would seriously consider attending a demonstration with a placard reading 'Not in my name'.
It was her government that de-regulated the UK banking system, the fruits of which were seen in the banking crisis; dealing with that has cost the taxpayer billions of pounds, resulting in the current public spending cuts, and consequential loss of thousands of jobs. So, people in the UK are still suffering the consequences of her policies.
Angus
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
... That Baroness Thatcher has not committed felony murder may be sufficient to you to absolve her from monstrosity, but not to the "reasonable person" of legal doctrine. I think those whose livelihoods were ruined by the collapse of British manufacturing, or those who were "disappeared" by Pinochet's regime would probably say "monstrous" about sums up the legacy of her policies.
Comparing Thatcher to Pinochet is ridiculous. Do you just put anyone more conservative than Gorbachev into a box marked "Evil Right-Winger"?
Socialist and Communist regimes have been responsible for more lives ruined and lost than any other belief system in the last century - and that's saying something. At least Thatcher was actually trying to help her country.
Since this is threatening to get Hellish, I will quit the discussion with one last summation of my stance:
Margaret Thatcher was a great, but seriously flawed figure. She does not, by British norms, deserve a state funeral. She does deserve the honor and respect of her compatriots for all the things she did achieve for the good.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Comparing Thatcher to Pinochet is ridiculous. Do you just put anyone more conservative than Gorbachev into a box marked "Evil Right-Winger"?
Thatcher and Pinochet were good friends and she tried very hard to protect him.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
I've just checked that despite the deep anger expressed here by many (for perfectly good reasons to my mind), the f**k word has not been used once.
It seems to work differently in American and British usage.
End of digression.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
So who's just used it then, and what has it contributed?
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
... That Baroness Thatcher has not committed felony murder may be sufficient to you to absolve her from monstrosity, but not to the "reasonable person" of legal doctrine. I think those whose livelihoods were ruined by the collapse of British manufacturing, or those who were "disappeared" by Pinochet's regime would probably say "monstrous" about sums up the legacy of her policies.
Comparing Thatcher to Pinochet is ridiculous. Do you just put anyone more conservative than Gorbachev into a box marked "Evil Right-Winger"?
I wasn't "comparing" her: I was pointing to an example of a result of her policies (namely, her cosy support for Pinochet) implicated in civilian deaths. Brushing it off as "ridiculous" isn't exactly a stinging retort.
Why are you so keen, for that matter, to mitigate anyone more liberal than the Kim dynasty as merely "flawed"? Those victimized by Pinochet with Thatcher's aid and comfort would differ with the "greatness" assessment. I'm not being rhetorical, either, but am genuinely surprised: I never took you for such a hawk, Ross!
Despite my perplexity, though, I'm finding this fascinating and wouldn't want it to get punted to the Inferno. Although admittedly we've come a long way from state ecclesiantical protocol.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
I was referring to the practical economics of our day, in which the hard-working, careful small business owner is allowed to fail due to the shenanigans of bloated giant corporations. The latter are allowed to misbehave and then bailed out by the taxpayers - while their CEOs and co-conspirators take home billions.
If that's what you're objecting to, you need to work out who your allies are. People who actually call themselves socialists (i.e. ken) are on your side.
Oh sure, for now.
Except once they've got rid of all the big business owners they'll get rid of all the small business owners. They won't stop until nobody owns anything and we are all utterly dependent on the State for our entire existence.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
I was referring to the practical economics of our day, in which the hard-working, careful small business owner is allowed to fail due to the shenanigans of bloated giant corporations. The latter are allowed to misbehave and then bailed out by the taxpayers - while their CEOs and co-conspirators take home billions.
If that's what you're objecting to, you need to work out who your allies are. People who actually call themselves socialists (i.e. ken) are on your side.
Oh sure, for now.
Except once they've got rid of all the big business owners they'll get rid of all the small business owners. They won't stop until nobody owns anything and we are all utterly dependent on the State for our entire existence.
Marvin, do you posess telepathy and clairvoyance? I aspire to be a socialist (as with many honourable titles, such as Christian, which I dare to apply to myself, I am mainly conscious of the many ways in which I do not live up to all it implies) and I have no desire to "get rid of all the small business owners". Nor does anyone else I know. Personally, I'm not convinced that making far fetched claims does much to advance an honest debate.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
If Thatcher were given a State Funeral I would seriously consider attending a demonstration with a placard reading 'Not in my name'.
Angus
It occurred to me that turning up, with others, and facing away from the cortege might express things appropriately. This had some small agreement from those I was with the last few days.
Penny
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
I aspire to be a socialist (as with many honourable titles, such as Christian, which I dare to apply to myself, I am mainly conscious of the many ways in which I do not live up to all it implies) and I have no desire to "get rid of all the small business owners". Nor does anyone else I know. Personally, I'm not convinced that making far fetched claims does much to advance an honest debate.
And as the son of a small business owner, dependent on small business for my support growing up, I would certainly have no such agenda. On the contrary, I've criticized some currents of socialism for lumping small business owners in with Big Bad Surplus Value Exploiters.
Posted by St. Stephen the Stoned (# 9841) on
:
I heard the WaO item on the car radio as I drove to the Northern General Hospital to visit my mother, who was on an End Of Life Care Plan. I thought for a second that Thatcher was dead, then realised that the lack of fireworks and cheering people (this is still the Peoples' Republic of South Yorkshire) made that unlikely.
I thought "if she upstages my mother...!"
For the first and last time, I wished Thatcher a long life.
Mother died on Boxing Day.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
I was referring to the practical economics of our day, in which the hard-working, careful small business owner is allowed to fail due to the shenanigans of bloated giant corporations. The latter are allowed to misbehave and then bailed out by the taxpayers - while their CEOs and co-conspirators take home billions.
If that's what you're objecting to, you need to work out who your allies are. People who actually call themselves socialists (i.e. ken) are on your side.
Oh sure, for now.
Except once they've got rid of all the big business owners they'll get rid of all the small business owners. They won't stop until nobody owns anything and we are all utterly dependent on the State for our entire existence.
Look who got a copy of The Road to Serfdom in his stocking, then.
Which is fair enough. Christmas is traditionally a time for far-fetched tales to make your spine tingle. As long as you remember that that's all they are.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Except once they've got rid of all the big business owners they'll get rid of all the small business owners.
Big business is usually the worst enemy of small business.
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ondergard:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
She was the leader of your government for a pretty formative period.
You got that one wrong, Yank. She wasn't the leader of MY government. She was the leader of HER MAJESTY'S Government, and even at her most popular she never commanded the majority of the votes cast in any election, so even in that sense she wasn't the leader of MY government either.
I didn't vote for her, and never would, and neither would I ever vote for any member of the political party she represented, which I consider to be inherently selfish, greedy, divisive, and fundamentally non-Christian. As was Thatcher.
At least she hasn't used her retirement as a period for pure cash generation like a recent prime-minister I could mention. That man would qualify for a double first with bar and oak leaves in Greed.
She also left the economy in a better state then when she came to power although undoubtedly there were mistakes made in that period.
But really I doubt whether Mrs Thatcher or her family would contemplate a state funeral which like the Olympics would be just another excuse for wasting taxpayers' money. A private subscription to place her statue in Trafalgar Square might be more fitting.
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by St. Stephen the Stoned:
I heard the WaO item on the car radio as I drove to the Northern General Hospital to visit my mother, who was on an End Of Life Care Plan. I thought for a second that Thatcher was dead, then realised that the lack of fireworks and cheering people (this is still the Peoples' Republic of South Yorkshire) made that unlikely.
I thought "if she upstages my mother...!"
For the first and last time, I wished Thatcher a long life.
Mother died on Boxing Day.
Sorry about your mum but honestly - seeing what was done to the Fitzwilliam-Wentworth Estate in South Yorkshire (strip-mining one of the most beautiful places in Yorkshire by the Coal Board) I wonder it isn't called the Stupid Republic of South Yorkshire.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Except once they've got rid of all the big business owners they'll get rid of all the small business owners.
Big business is usually the worst enemy of small business.
Here in Australia, at least, trade unions don't much mind big business, with which they can "negotiate" deals, but utterly loathe the vast mass of small business people, particularly independent tradespeople (such as a plumber who sets up for themself and employs a few workers) because they can't be collectivised and controlled through some central body.
[ 28. December 2011, 19:46: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
I aspire to be a socialist and I have no desire to "get rid of all the small business owners". Nor does anyone else I know.
Not right now, no. Because there are bigger business owners to destroy.
But once those bigger heads have all rolled, the ones who are smaller now will suddenly be the biggest. And the whole cycle will start again.
Until everyone is exactly equal there will always be a richest 10% and a poorest 10% of society. And that means there will always be socialists who want to destroy the former in order to build up the latter. There will always be new targets, and sooner or later they will include you and me.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Marvin, have you ever asked yourself who wants you to believe that?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
It's my own conjecture based on the known facts. I'm well aware that big business is evil, but if the only way to keep what I've got is to let those bastards keep what they've got as well then so be it.
If I could trust socialists to destroy big business then stop and leave the rest of us alone then I'd have far less of a problem with them. But I don't. I have no doubt that sooner or later they'll come after my posessions as well.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Except once they've got rid of all the big business owners they'll get rid of all the small business owners.
Big business is usually the worst enemy of small business.
Here in Australia, at least, trade unions don't much mind big business, with which they can "negotiate" deals, but utterly loathe the vast mass of small business people, particularly independent tradespeople (such as a plumber who sets up for themself and employs a few workers) because they can't be collectivised and controlled through some central body.
AIUI, the kind of managerialist left that's the most prominent form of leftism at the moment - the kind that takes a basically capitalist system and then tries to make it look more like socialism by means of centrally-imposed rules and regulations - tends, in practice, to favour big businesses over small, because big businesses have the capital and resources to implement more easily the regulations that are imposed on them.
(Of course ken would probably deny that the managerial-left is really left-wing at all.)
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Marvin, have you ever asked yourself who wants you to believe that?
Yes - the Evil Capitalist and Imperialist Cake-Maker - Mr Kipling.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's my own conjecture based on the known facts.
Ok, would have posted this earlier but have been away for a few days. Marvin, please give concrete and verifiable examples of actions by or arguments from major socialist or social democratic governments, parties, party leaders, or thinkers in Western Europe, the Antipodes or North America since 1945, which constitute these 'known facts'*.
* By 'thinkers' I mean people of the stature of, I suppose, Anthony Crosland in the UK. If you're citing things which might be seen as having primarily a symbolic importance (e.g. the old Labour Party Clause IV), please show how they were translated into actual lasting policy proposals.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
No, sod it, scrub that last message- I'm sure Marvin and I have both got better things to do than pursue this.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0