Margaret Thatcher dies at 87

[Keevan_Colton]

Particularly when the bill turns up and is into the tens of millions...though it might be more entertaining to express it in terms of number of nurses or teachers it would pay for.

[Admiral Valdemar]

It's funny watching the back-pedalling on Question Time about Maggie being all sooper dooper, then Blunkett reminding everyone that the Tories got rid of her.

[darth_timon]

Personally, I resent paying for her funeral. I am quite apathetic in terms of her achievements and reputation, and I don't wish her ill, but why should I have to pay for her funeral?

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Isn't it a tradition that heads of state/politicians/whoever we think is important are buried by public expense?

[Thanas]

Yeah it is and I fail to see why it should not apply here.

[Hillary]

Yeah it is and I fail to see why it should not apply here.

Me neither - and I can't say I was a fan. Some of the invitees raise an eyebrow for me, Jeremy Clarkson especially.

[madd0ct0r]

becuase she's the first since winston churchhill to get a funeral this large and expensive.
Why does she deserve more public money than the others?

[ray245]

becuase she's the first since winston churchhill to get a funeral this large and expensive.
Why does she deserve more public money than the others?

Maybe because she is still quite well recognised and respected among world leaders and British politicians? Also being one of Britain's longest serving PM would have something to do with it as well.

[madd0ct0r]

fuck, we have to do this for blair in a few decades too then?

nah, this all has the feelings of a cult of personality, a memory from a time that happens to reflect well on the present too.

[Starglider]

Why does she deserve more public money than the others?

For saving the country from near destruction (at the hands of the power-mad unions). That's why she won three elections in a row; however loud the bitching and whining from the hard-left might get, the majority of the country was hugely relieved and grateful that the choking hands of union idiocy had been pried away from the throat of the British economy. I'd note that most of the people complaining about the cost of this funeral are the ones who don't pay much tax anyway, whereas Thatcher is deeply respected by the majority of high tax payers.

[Losonti Tokash]

There is no small irony in people who oppose using taxes to stop people from starving to death gleefully using taxes to pay for someone's funeral.

But rich people liked her so it's okay.

[Keevan_Colton]

You mean those that by proportion pay less tax than anyone else, right?

Here's an idea, since her family is worth well into the tens of millions, how about they front up the full cost for a royal funeral for her (it is after all likely to cost more than the queen mother or diana at this point)?

We cant afford to look after the sick and disabled properly, but we can afford up to £3750 each in expenses to have the politicians come back in a few days early to talk about how awesome she was...and then possibly in the region of £25,000,000 to cremate her and put on a party for the whole Chipping Norton set and assorted other people with more money than most people will earn in a lifetime.

Then there's talking of public funding for a memorial to her in Trafalgar Square...

Seriously, every time you open your mouth on anything economically related I just want to punch you in the face till you choke on your own blood. Who will save the country from the parasitic bankers and sycophantic hangers on they've clogged the system up with?

Given that a lot of the current shit can be traced back to Maggie, deregulation, privatisation and the selling off of the council housing stock (combined with a prohibition on using the money generated to build replacements) which she set in motion and which New Labour continued on with or failed to reverse...why should we think she saved anyone from anything?

If we're all in this austerity nation together then the first thing to go should be totally frivolous expenses like parties for rich people at the tax payers expense.

[Admiral Valdemar]

For saving the country from near destruction (at the hands of the power-mad unions). That's why she won three elections in a row; however loud the bitching and whining from the hard-left might get, the majority of the country was hugely relieved and grateful that the choking hands of union idiocy had been pried away from the throat of the British economy. I'd note that most of the people complaining about the cost of this funeral are the ones who don't pay much tax anyway

Pretty funny, then, that she never once won with a clear majority, so this "she was beloved of the people" spiel is just wrong. By that same reasoning, I guess we can say Blair was loved by all too, and it had nothing to do with a pathetic, disorganised opposition. Pretty sure the riots she helped foment are a good indicator of that too. But I'm sure glad she "saved" the country by forcing millions of people into destitution, fucking over vast swathes of not-the-rich-south and deregulating industries that we're paying the cost for still to this day.

Were it not for the North Sea, her policies would have been even less loved by the great masses of well off people, sorry, I mean all Britons. Oh yeah, and the Falklands. Pity the Argies were a bit stupid in invading just prior to us ridding ourselves of those useless task force vessels we'd probably use one day for far off military engagements.

By the way, I pay my full tax. I'm not happy with her special funeral arrangements either.

whereas Thatcher is deeply respected by the majority of high tax payers.

Really? You'll have to convince me.

My one regret over this is I won't be able to amuse myself listening to my dad's fawning over Thatcher versus his dad's absolute blind loyalty to Blair and New Labour.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I forgot to add, I actually agree that the unions had to be dealt with. Just not the way she went about doing it.

[Starglider]

Pretty funny, then, that she never once won with a clear majority,

The UK is a multi-party state, no post-war general election has produced an absolute majority so I fail to see how that is relevant.

By that same reasoning, I guess we can say Blair was loved by all too,

Yes, we can (say that the majority of the country liked him), because Blair's approval rating averaged above 50% for his first five years. It probably would've been longer if not for the invasion of Iraq; that was something of a no-win scenario for popularity as both supporting and abandoning the Americans would have pissed off a good chunk of the population. Of course Blair's popularity came largely from dumping much of the legacy Labour union crap and moving to the center, allowing Labour to become a viable alternative to a population ready for a change in leadership.

But I'm sure glad she "saved" the country by forcing millions of people into destitution, fucking over vast swathes of not-the-rich-south and deregulating industries that we're paying the cost for still to this day.

The unions had their chance to be reasonable all through the 70s. They stubbornly refused to allow any modernisation, stuck their fingers in their ears at any mention of 'global competiveness' and generally acted like the country owed them high pay for showing up three days a week, doing a crap job (if they worked at all) and never facing any risk of being fired. The unions were happy to run the economy into the ground and cause unlimited misery to everyone else, as long as their members kept their subsidised jobs and their leaders continued to enjoy champagne socialism at its finest. So no, I have very little sympathy for the hardship of people who spent years destroying companies and forcing the rest of the country to subsidise their amateur Marxist grandstanding. Thatcher had plenty of flaws but was at least trying to save the country as a whole.

Were it not for the North Sea, her policies would have been even less loved by the great masses of well off people, sorry, I mean all Britons.

Speculative and applicable to any government, regardless of policies.

Oh yeah, and the Falklands. Pity the Argies were a bit stupid in invading just prior to us ridding ourselves of those useless task force vessels we'd probably use one day for far off military engagements.

I find it darkly humorous that supposedly anti-war/anti-military socialists make an exception just for the 1981 white paper, because force drawdowns are apparently bad when Conservatives do it. In reality that was austerity forced by Labour's destruction of the economy (and hence direct revenue) and the need to reduce inflation - just as we now have austerity forced by the profilgerate fiscal policy of the last Labour government. The defence of the UK and NATO in general was in a horrible state versus the rapid increase in capability of the Warsaw Pact through the 1970s, and the only viable way to improve it under the financial constraints was integration and elimination of redundant capability in NATO. You know, what socialists now propose in the context of joint EU defence, but is bad when NATO did it because US evil etc. Fortunately the acceleration of economic growth and technological innovation under Reagan and Thatcher allowed a rapid improvement in Western defensive capability later in the 80s.

[Starglider]

You mean those that by proportion pay less tax than anyone else, right?

The fraction of the taxpaying population able to reduce their effective rate below the basic rate of income tax is somewhere below 0.1%, insignificant for the purposes of approval ratings and general popularity (and they still pay vastly more actual money to the government than the average taxpayer). The vast majority of the so-called 'one percent' are paying much more tax than average on both a proportionate and absolute basis - yet they are still almost irrelevant from a popularity and electorial standpoint. Thatcher was popular with almost everyone who wasn't a union parasite, dole skiver or civil service jobsworth; in other words the middle class making up a large fraction of the country.

Here's an idea, since her family is worth well into the tens of millions, how about they front up the full cost for a royal funeral for her (it is after all likely to cost more than the queen mother or diana at this point)?

The funeral is not for her benefit. She's dead and gone. The funeral is for the benefit of people who want to pay their respects. That is a good cross-section of the population, and much of the cost is security to deal with unruly protestors - who very much deserve to pay for problems they are causing.

Seriously, every time you open your mouth on anything economically related I just want to punch you in the face till you choke on your own blood.

Of course you do, because socialists always resort to violence to smash enterprise, imprison opposition and steal from the productive. Individual liberty is poisonous to The Party and anathema to your worldview.

Who will save the country from the parasitic bankers and sycophantic hangers on they've clogged the system up with?

So far, no one. Anyone who tries can be bought off or excluded from mainstream politics.

[Admiral Valdemar]

The UK is a multi-party state, no post-war general election has produced an absolute majority so I fail to see how that is relevant.

My point is, you can't gauge how popular she is with the whole nation when voter turnout is what it is, and especially with the reorganisation of the political sphere during her early years. Technically, you're right. Pointing to election results is no indication the majority of the country loved her, just that a certain strong minority chunk took her over the opposition and even then, may not have been totally enamoured. As I said, the legacy she has left shows she is the Marmite of politics with it being far from clear cut whether she was loved or loathed by the nation.

Yes, we can (say that the majority of the country liked him), because Blair's approval rating averaged above 50% for his first five years. It probably would've been longer if not for the invasion of Iraq; that was something of a no-win scenario for popularity as both supporting and abandoning the Americans would have pissed off a good chunk of the population. Of course Blair's popularity came largely from dumping much of the legacy Labour union crap and moving to the center, allowing Labour to become a viable alternative to a population ready for a change in leadership.

See above, but yes, being an acolyte of Thatcher, Blair understood how to play the game the way she did. I certainly won't be looking forward to forking out for his funeral either.

The unions had their chance to be reasonable all through the 70s. They stubbornly refused to allow any modernisation, stuck their fingers in their ears at any mention of 'global competiveness' and generally acted like the country owed them high pay for showing up three days a week, doing a crap job (if they worked at all) and never facing any risk of being fired. The unions were happy to run the economy into the ground and cause unlimited misery to everyone else, as long as their members kept their subsidised jobs and their leaders continued to enjoy champagne socialism at its finest. So no, I have very little sympathy for the hardship of people who spent years destroying companies and forcing the rest of the country to subsidise their amateur Marxist grandstanding. Thatcher had plenty of flaws but was at least trying to save the country as a whole.

And the unions had it coming, I agree. But again, she caused huge social disorder and put at least three million out of work, damaged manufacturing anyway and polarised the way people saw her. She may have had good intentions, and we all know that idiom that goes with this. What I'm saying is that she was the hammer and the working class were the nail, when really she should have done more to declaw the union bosses and get people from defunct mining jobs into manufacturing without the riots and shaky economic output prior to the Falklands war. Her "no society" schtick and general apathy to the plight of the people she was basically throwing out on the street didn't do her any favours. She was also one for the greed is good movement that Mr. G. Gekko would applaud, which further tarnishes her image to my mind.

Speculative and applicable to any government, regardless of policies.

But no less important. And she did benefit from that golden goose in the North Sea. The problem some have with her government, was abusing such a resource rather than making it the tapped out husk it is today. That said, there are few governments that are sensible when it comes to windfalls in natural resources, so I imagine the same mishandling were Labour in.

I find it darkly humorous that supposedly anti-war/anti-military socialists make an exception just for the 1981 white paper, because force drawdowns are apparently bad when Conservatives do it. In reality that was austerity forced by Labour's destruction of the economy (and hence direct revenue) and the need to reduce inflation - just as we now have austerity forced by the profilgerate fiscal policy of the last Labour government. The defence of the UK and NATO in general was in a horrible state versus the rapid increase in capability of the Warsaw Pact through the 1970s, and the only viable way to improve it under the financial constraints was integration and elimination of redundant capability in NATO. You know, what socialists now propose in the context of joint EU defence, but is bad when NATO did it because US evil etc. Fortunately the acceleration of economic growth and technological innovation under Reagan and Thatcher allowed a rapid improvement in Western defensive capability later in the 80s.

You'll get no argument from me over the forces during the Cold War, coming from a family with those who have served and are serving. Wilson's government killing TSR-2 pisses me off, along with the whole unmanned weapons angle way before they were ready for primetime, as I'm sure you'll agree. Today it's different, however, and especially given the Blair/Bush clusterfucks that caused so much anti-war sentiment in the last decade.

[Guardsman Bass]

And the unions had it coming, I agree. But again, she caused huge social disorder and put at least three million out of work, damaged manufacturing anyway and polarised the way people saw her. She may have had good intentions, and we all know that idiom that goes with this. What I'm saying is that she was the hammer and the working class were the nail, when really she should have done more to declaw the union bosses and get people from defunct mining jobs into manufacturing without the riots and shaky economic output prior to the Falklands war. Her "no society" schtick and general apathy to the plight of the people she was basically throwing out on the street didn't do her any favours. She was also one for the greed is good movement that Mr. G. Gekko would applaud, which further tarnishes her image to my mind.

Honestly, that was the problem with nationalizing all the coal mines in the first place, along with a number of other industries. If they were still private in the post-war period, the uneconomical nature of many of the coal pits would have forced them to close down gradually over time, leaving more breathing room for the communities built around coal mining to adjust. It still wouldn't be a pleasant situation (look at Detroit in the US by comparison), but the pain wouldn't have been so concentrated.

*snip*

I'm enjoying Hard Libertarian Starglider, even when I disagree with him.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Honestly, that was the problem with nationalizing all the coal mines in the first place, along with a number of other industries. If they were still private in the post-war period, the uneconomical nature of many of the coal pits would have forced them to close down gradually over time, leaving more breathing room for the communities built around coal mining to adjust. It still wouldn't be a pleasant situation (look at Detroit in the US by comparison), but the pain wouldn't have been so concentrated.

I actually had this debate with a Geordie member at work. He's in his fifties and, despite buying The Torygraph and baulking at Thatcher praise within said paper, he did listen to me point out that the mines would have gone away eventually anyway. The energy content for the coal Britain produced had been declining since the turn of the century, so it was only ever going to become even more uneconomical in this age of oil and gas. Also, climate change. They were dirty, dangerous and unforgiving sources of employment, so I can't imagine ever fighting for them if I was given a suitable alternative in manufacturing or the service sector.

The mines and the union leaders were all going to have to be dealt with, so if anyone has hang-ups over their disappearance, then they'd have not liked any other government much better. All that had to be decided was how to go about dealing with them.

[ray245]

The mines and the union leaders were all going to have to be dealt with, so if anyone has hang-ups over their disappearance, then they'd have not liked any other government much better. All that had to be decided was how to go about dealing with them.

Well, that won't be so big of an issue if Thatcher can provide alternative jobs and job skills to people who work in the mining industry.

[Admiral Valdemar]

She'll have a time. She's dead.

[K. A. Pital]

The funeral is not for her benefit. She's dead and gone. The funeral is for the benefit of people who want to pay their respects. That is a good cross-section of the population, and much of the cost is security to deal with unruly protestors - who very much deserve to pay for problems they are causing.

Says the socialist who polices Britain with a stick.

[Akhlut]

The funeral is not for her benefit. She's dead and gone. The funeral is for the benefit of people who want to pay their respects. That is a good cross-section of the population, and much of the cost is security to deal with unruly protestors - who very much deserve to pay for problems they are causing.

You want security, pay for it yourself, parasite. Don't rely on the government to protect your lily-livered ass and start pulling yourself up by your bootstraps. Society's not a real thing, remember?

[LadyTevar]

Annoying side-note: Nitram & I are arriving in England the day of the funeral. It's going to be fun dealing with this at 8am, with three heavy bags, heading from Heathrow to our hotel via the Tube.

[Winston Smith]

Well, she was a great Prime Minister, that's for sure. She halted and reversed the terminal decline we were in.