Boards

in theory

^satire

first woman prime minister = yes

ruining the lives of hundreds of thousands of people and destroying communities across the country = no

if not then I don't really give a shit.

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.

wtf, seriously no.

who ver zucking the lifeblood of the country.

Now that they are gone. There is zo much more bluuuuuud vor me to zuck.

ah ah ah.

And i'm not even really saying that as a Conservaitve.

At its most basic level, she was the first female Prime Minister. And, as far as I can remember off the top of my head, the only woman that has come even vaguely close to that since Maggie left office is Margaret Beckett being Foreign Secretary. She was, without doubt, a trailblazer. Of course, some prick will say 'LOLZ, BUT SHE'S MORE MAN THaN SHE IS WOMAN.' A funny 'joke' maybe, but not an argument against a state funeral.

And there are of course, many other reasons. For one, she destroyed socialism. It simply doesn't exist anymore. It does in theory, but it stands no chance of becoming a political reality in the forseeable future. Some may of course see this as a bad thing, but the fact is she managed to create a fundamental shift in the political landscape. She had the conviction and the ability to see her ideas through the end. Has any leader since managed to take the nation on such a journey? No, they wouldn't dare even try.

And she broke the crippling power of the Trade Unions. Although some may not believe it, she wasn't actually anti-union, she simply believed they had too much influence. For example, she implemented a law making all union ballots secret. This is a move which gave workers MORE rights than they ever would have got had she not intervened.

She also gave normal, hard working families a chance to take control of their own lives. For the first time, the low paid had some semblance of control over their own lives through being given the option to buy their council house. No longer were they indebted to, and at the mercy of, the State.

And finally, her legacy. This is the reason why I think she most deserves a State funeral, and it's not a party political issue. She has created an everlasting legacy, an epochal shift in the way we view ourselves and the world around us. The fact that even today, Gordon Brown, a Labour Prime Minister, is desperate to be seen in her company shows just how nfluental she was and remains to be almost 20 years after she left office. Will future Prime Ministers be clamouring to have their photo taken with Blair or Brown on the steps of number 10? Of course they won't.

Why should the state hold someone's funeral anyway? Seems like a bit of a waste of time and resources.

and see what happens

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.

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.

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.

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?