Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
y'knewwww? makes ya think an shiit
just coz she was the first woman to do it, surely everyone knows she was basically a man by now
first woman prime minister = yes
ruining the lives of hundreds of thousands of people and destroying communities across the country = no
the divisions in the labour party that might occur should thatcher die and the state funeral thing happen.
let's just say it was the sort of play that had fiesta by the pogues blasting out and people dancing in the streets at the news of her demise.
warrant a state funeral?
that she's made it unlikely we'll have another female PM for a while?
if she did such a shit job, she can pay for her own bloody funeral
to my kind
if not then I don't really give a shit.
contract it out to private industry
it's what she would've wanted
a state funeral for her would be something around which "the nation" as a traditional social institution, could gather...
nah i'm not buying this either
let's do it
is what people who lived/worked through it tend to say
i think she was anti income based taxes...
Its going to get mass Tv and media coverage anyway, so I aint fussed.
what we all whant to know is what tunes would she choose to be played at it.
Conservative leader David Cameron's spokesman said: "Margaret Thatcher was one of Britain's greatest prime ministers and she remains in good health."
That makes me shudder....
I think a lot of people would be very annoyed if they thought there taxes were going towards that witch
wtf, seriously no.
do you think the only reason blair is seen as such a bad guy these days is coz of iraq, they said that stuff about other politicians wanting to hang out with them about reagan and nixon, they were cool too dont you think
2nd paragraph is just speculation, we've only had one long term PM since her and he did a pretty effective job of putting his mark on the governing of the nation, socialism is still a political reality elsewhere
otherwise you could be right, idk, none of those things seem to really be solid enough points to count as a justification though
ive always thought maggie missed a trick with the falklands war, it always seemed pretty bizarre that its seen in the way it is and ive often wondered why noone has thought to present it positively
Was to crate the 'me first' culture that we're still paying for today.
If Argentina didn't act the cunt, she would be an irrelevance. The least popular prime minister in history, kept in power by a war she partly engineered.
At least if she has a state funeral the whole of Durham can have a day on the piss in celebration.
I'm thinking of alcohol too much, obviously.
with regard to the falklands though, britain winning it put an end to 8 years of military dictatorship during which 30,000 people were killed by the state, and opened up the country to democracy, this isnt something anyone really mentions when talking about it though
The fall of the Galtieri government may have been a good thing, but the Falklands War wasn't about that.
It was about protecting British territory. I've no problem with that, but it'd be a whole lot more respectable if Thatcher hadn't partly encouraged them by removing the British military presence in the South Atlantic that perennially scared off Argentina.
i mean i knew you werent arguing about that and i agree with what youre saying, i was just pointing it out mainly, its always seemed odd to me that no-one ever mentions it when theyre talking about the falklands
Forgets the South American dictatorships of the 70s and 80s. Except maybe Pinochet.
Partly because the West put them there in the first place, and partly because we're too conditioned to thinking mental dictatorships only happen in the Middle East.
there's an argument that the west is responsible for most of the mental dictatorships in the middle east as well
it doesnt make it any less curious that thatcher, who could lay reasonable claim to some part in the ending of this one, doesnt do so. although the pinochet thing you mention might be the reason for that...
We're responsible for most of them as well. I didn't want to digress yet further though... ;-)
Why should the state hold someone's funeral anyway? Seems like a bit of a waste of time and resources.
would they put it outside 10 downing street
david cameron might use it as more evidence that we're a 'broken society' though, and start talking about how were demoralised and stuff again, that wouldnt be cool would it
itd build community spirit as well i guess, she'd be taking us on a journey the like of which we havent seen since last time she did it
If the powers that be decide that one of the nations finest and most respected post war stateswomen should be honoured in this way then I would whole heartedly support it.
…Providing a few days of national mourning were called. As she was lying in state in Westminster Abbey, instead of filing past respectfully the public where allowed to form a conga line whilst Tony Benn and Neil Kinnock played a duet of Kool and the Gangs ‘Celebration.’ on the Cathedrals Organ.
At the service itself, the Archbishop of Canterbury should be forced to inhale helium during the eulogy. After the service her coffin should be loaded into the back of a Leyland Transporter and driven to the HMS Belfast, (somehow) loaded into main gun by the widows of the men murdered on the General Belgrano and fired into an enormous vat of excrement donated by the four and a half million good honest workers her government trampled and sold out.
…I am, perhaps entering the realms of fantasy.
But, I’ll just be glad when the evil twofaced cunt has the dignity to stop stealing our oxygen.
It was over, and they were driving the car up the motorway (and following it on camera). And even then, her mum went MENTAL because I had DARED to call while the coverage was still going. I didn't even want to speak to her - I didn't know her.
Anyway, if I find anyone gets that sanctimonious this time round, I'll be calling them in the thick of it.
Which isn't to say I'm willing this on. Much as I despise the woman, I don't wish pain or harm on anyone.
make the proper respectable gesture -
but that bit does my head in because E.T. was famously Diana's favourite film.
but then that blonde whore shouldn't have had one either.
where do you draw the line? sophie fucking wessex?
then I will get a chance to throw cabbages, hot Bovril and gravel at her coffin and her shitty fans.
(which in itself would really piss her off.)
But it would be great. There would be sreet parties and dancing and celebrations as cheering crowds drag her scrawny carcass through the dirt, string it up from a lamp post and torch the cunt.
Well, that's what we'll do round our way.
unless you're going to introduce this for all prime ministers. Yes, ultimately she made the country richer with her policies (though by the time she left office we were going through a recession anyway), but she also caused a lot of people a lot of misery.
If she'd united the country in a time of adversity (i.e. war - and the Falklands hardly counts here) then perhaps there could be a case for it, but she didn't, she divided it further.
So basically: no.
Did you read the article in yesterday's Guardian? It basically made the same points that you've raised here.
It's debatable but ultimately i would say no, even as a supporter of Thatcher i don't think she carries he same clout as Churchill.
The hate surrounding thatcher is to be expected as anyone whose family was hit by the decline in manufacturing and primary industries will blame her outright for a loss in income, but it's unfair to place the blame solely on her, when she entered office Britain's reputation as a manufacturer of quality was already shot to pieces through the classic mesh of poor management and routine striking, British Leyland being the prime example of this. Inflation stood at 13.4% and 44% of the GDP was being used to pay off debts, debts incurred partly in bailing out companies like BL. in her term in office she got inflation under control, economic growth increased, she got the national debt down to 27.7%, unemployment after a initial increase started to fall.
We all know it didn't all work out, the economy grew too quickly and in the end we went back to boom and bust, a disappointing end to her premiership, but ultimately the country is better off for her policies, the recession may have lasted into the mid 90's but that initial turnaround in her early years should not be forgotten, it's difficult to predict where inflation might have got to without it, or predict what % of the countries GDP would be used to pay debt. Hate her if you will but the positive effect of her economic policies on the country outweigh any short term issues to the individual
It's a silly precedent to set. Of course she was one of the most influential leaders this country has ever had, but then so was Attlee, or even the much-loved Tony in more recent times. Do we really owe these guys a state funeral?
For people whose achievements came during wartime, sure. That's uncontroversial because they were important figures who served the state, whichever way you look at it. But the same doesn't hold for leaders whose actions attracted widespread condemnation from reasonable people (and before anyone accuses me of being partisan, note that this applies to the likes of Attlee too!).
It would be wrong for the state to bestow an honour that great on someone whose "achievements" are so contentious. It effectively amounts to the state approving one particular ideology at the highest level. And if you want to maintain fairness after that, where do you stop? Do we just give PMs state funerals based on how sweeping their reforms were? Because that's just a totally arbitrary criterion, right?