Petition for Thatcher's state funeral to be privatised

[RobertLeDiable]

Compare and contrast today's money-grabbing, expenses fiddling bunch of nonentitities with Mrs Thatcher:-

Archive files just released from 1981 reveal that she found the proposed refurbishment costs for the flat at No.10 exorbitant-1,386 pounds, equivalent to about 8,300 in today's money; she queried all the costs and paid 19 quid of her own cash for an ironing board.

How things change......

She also arranged for her husband to be awarded an hereditary baronetcy (with absolutely no discernible justification) so that her ghastly son and his heirs would inherit a title for evermore. If that's not an abuse of power and 'playing the system' to her own family's benefit, I don't know what is. And of course we don't know how much she and her generation of MPs played the expenses system, and we never shall.

[rank_and_file]

Well, this thread has opened my eyes to some truly nasty vicious posters, without an ounce of charity flowing in their embittered and twisted veins.

It really is about time that Platform 3 was closed so the disgusting bile that so many of you seem to wish on another frail and ill human being is kept hidden in your own perverted souls.

[Serial_Apologist]

Well, this thread has opened my eyes to some truly nasty vicious posters, without an ounce of charity flowing in their embittered and twisted veins.

It really is about time that Platform 3 was closed so the disgusting bile that so many of you seem to wish on another frail and ill human being is kept hidden in your own perverted souls.

And a very happy new year to you, too, rank_and_file!

[MrGongGong]

Well, this thread has opened my eyes to some truly nasty vicious posters, without an ounce of charity flowing in their embittered and twisted veins.

It really is about time that Platform 3 was closed so the disgusting bile that so many of you seem to wish on another frail and ill human being is kept hidden in your own perverted souls.

And seasons greetings to you as well

[RobertLeDiable]

And seasons greetings to you as well

Yes - a very good new year to you.

This thread has been discussing the idea, put about by her supporters in the Conservative Party, that Margaret Thatcher should be given a state funeral when the time comes. No-one would wish Alzheimer's Disease on anyone, but I think those of us who object very strongly to such a proposal on the basis of her record in office are entitled to do so, in advance of the event so to speak.

[Flosshilde]

Well, this thread has opened my eyes to some truly nasty vicious posters, without an ounce of charity flowing in their embittered and twisted veins.

It really is about time that Platform 3 was closed so the disgusting bile that so many of you seem to wish on another frail and ill human being is kept hidden in your own perverted souls.

I don't think the frailty or ill-health of a person should be a reason, or an excuse, for not expressing an opinion about their actions when they were in the prime of life. Would you say that Nazi war criminals shouldn't face justice because they are now frail? Or a murderer? or a child abuser? These examples might seem rather extreme, compared to Mrs Thatcher, but a state funeral would be tantamount to 'rewarding' her for policies that did a great deal to destroy British manufacturing, create the current housing problems by removing 'social' housing stock, create the selfish & greedy atmosphere that spawned the grotesque bonuses & payments in the financial sector (to name just a few problems that beset the UK now)

[Mr Pee]

Yes - a very good new year to you.

This thread has been discussing the idea, put about by her supporters in the Conservative Party, that Margaret Thatcher should be given a state funeral when the time comes. No-one would wish Alzheimer's Disease on anyone, but I think those of us who object very strongly to such a proposal on the basis of her record in office are entitled to do so, in advance of the event so to speak.

You are indeed. But what I don't think those with that view should be entitled to do is post comments such as these:-

A state funeral for the wicked witch of the west would be quite a riot, don't you think?

perhaps a fitting epitaph for Thatcher would be the single word 'Rejoice'

Perhaps she'll peg it after the Queen's Jubilee and just before the Olympics, thus being as tiresome in death as she was in life.

I was born and brought up in a mining community in West Fife and I am sure, poor as they are, the good people of that area would be more than happy to put their hands in their pockets to cremate her now.

And Flosshilde:-

I don't think the frailty or ill-health of a person should be a reason, or an excuse, for not expressing an opinion about their actions when they were in the prime of life. Would you say that Nazi war criminals shouldn't face justice because they are now frail? Or a murderer? or a child abuser? These examples might seem rather extreme, compared to Mrs Thatcher, but a state funeral would be tantamount to 'rewarding' her for policies that did a great deal to destroy British manufacturing, create the current housing problems by removing 'social' housing stock, create the selfish & greedy atmosphere that spawned the grotesque bonuses & payments in the financial sector (to name just a few problems that beset the UK now)

A short while ago on another thread you were comparing the VPO to Nazis because the orchestra doesn't employ very many women, now you're drawing comparisons with Mrs Thatcher. In both cases, the comparison is meaningless; furthermore you talk about "facing justice" as though Mrs. T were a criminal, rather than a democratically elected Prime Minister who dragged the UK out of the grip of the Trade Unions and-belatedly- into the 20th Century.

And I must say I find it astonishing that over 20 years after she left office,to some people everything that's wrong with Britain today can apparently be laid at her door. It really is time you got over this weird obsession with Margaret Thatcher and found a new hate figure.

[MrGongGong]

She IS a criminal IMV
the Belgrano is just one of her crimes

[Flosshilde]

Mr Pee does seem to have difficulty in reading - and understanding - some posts on here. Perhaps his prejudices cloud his undertanding?

[jayne lee wilson]

But Mr.Pee, in what way did she "drag the Uk into the 20th Century"? Which one of her supposed innovations has been beneficial in the longer term? Always ask yourself - "what happened next?"

After the reduction in income tax rates, after monetaristically-inspired mass unemployment, after the under-funded enterprise schemes, after the deregulation of financial services, after privatisations of various utilities and public services (which continued with Major and Blair), after the obsessive, repeated attempts to "marketise" the NHS... what has been the effect on Britain, on the surely unquestionable principle that politicians should try to bring about social and economic conditions that encourage "the greatest good of the greatest number"?

Trade Unions in the 1970s were undoubtedly too powerful for their own good, but what did removing most of their power actually achieve? Wasn't this too a Tory obsession, like smashing the coal industry that, once achieved, left the Tory right clueless about what to do next (apart from tax cuts and arguing about Europe)? Too triumphalist about "the death of socialism" to know how to govern?

[ahinton]

But Mr.Pee, in what way did she "drag the Uk into the 20th Century"? Which one of her supposed innovations has been beneficial in the longer term? Always ask yourself - "what happened next?"

After the reduction in income tax rates, after monetaristically-inspired mass unemployment, after the under-funded enterprise schemes, after the deregulation of financial services, after privatisations of various utilities and public services (which continued with Major and Blair), after the obsessive, repeated attempts to "marketise" the NHS... what has been the effect on Britain, on the surely unquestionable principle that politicians should try to bring about social and economic conditions that encourage "the greatest good of the greatest number"?

Trade Unions in the 1970s were undoubtedly too powerful for their own good, but what did removing most of their power actually achieve? Wasn't this too a Tory obsession, like smashing the coal industry that, once achieved, left the Tory right clueless about what to do next (apart from tax cuts and arguing about Europe)? Too triumphalist about "the death of socialism" to know how to govern?

On this occasion I can sympathise with at least some of what Mr Pee writes but, at the same time, I would want to ask the same questions as you do. The 20th century was already three-quarters done before Margaret Thatcher even became Tory party leader. I don't believe that 100% of what happened during her Prime Ministership was either all bad or all down to her; however much she might be painted as a dictator, even she was elected only by rthe majority of voters in her own constituency - it was the party that she represented that was elected to govern Britain. You don't mention anything bad that happened during the 1970s (the decade in which MT became Tory party leader), confining your list instead to wht you perceive to be the negative legacy of MT during the 80s. Removing power from trade unions was indeed an obsession of some Tories as though it was somehow a universal panacea for Britain's economic woes, but not every Tory was so short-sighted as to believe that neutering unions would be any kind of cure-all - and, after all, wasn't some of the trade union rhetoric and actions prior to and during the early days of MT's premiership equally obsessive?

As to tax rates, I do not see how reducing these when it's possible to do so is necessarily a harmful thing to do; "the greatest good of the greatest number" simply cannot be afforded out of local and national taxes because that "greatest number" simply can't afford to pay enough of them to allow it to be broughtg about. Social housing stocks have depleted because local authorities just cannot afford to purchase and maintain them adequately and, as landlords, local authorities have legal obligations towards their tenants which they also find increasingly difficult to afford. It's also worth remembering that no small number of local authorities' finances worsened in recent times as a direct consequence of their having gotten their fingers burnt through inappropriate investment of council taxpayers' money.

As to "marketising" the NHS, it should be remembered that NHS needs to be run like a well-oiled business just like every other business if it is to succeed and, whatever one might say against it, it has succeeded pretty well over the years; the fact that it is "publicly funded" makes no difference to that need, especially since a large proportion of the taxes used to fund it are paid out of private incomes. Let us also remember that NHS and other public utilities procure services and materials from private industry and they'd be unable to function otherwise; in other words, it's not only a business but, like other businesses, it depends heavily on the ability to trade with other businesses. Whether a business is publicly owned or privately owned is surely of less importance than how well it is run; NHS has as shareholders the entire British population and is responsible to those shareholders just as is any other incorporated business and, on the whole, it has honoured those responsibilities with no small degree of success. Likewise, National Savings and Investments is as much a part of the financial services market as is any other organisation that accepts depositors' monies; there's always a risk for the customer, just as there's no such thing as "safe as the Bank of England". All that NS&I does with depositors' monies is invest them on the open market. The same should happen to state pensions too if they're ever to be taken seriously as pensions (meaning investments over periods of time to help fund retirement), but it doesn't because the government never invests the "contributions" that it receives on behalf of those contributors - this has been the same throughout the life of so-called "state retirement pensions" regardless of whether the government of the day has been of "right" or "left" inclination, the only difference today is that, as taxpayers' contributions are insufficient in themselves to fund the "pensions" (and cannot be otherwise), government has to borrrow funds to top them up.

How would government regulation of financial services have been a better thing than allowing this sector to deregulate? You can't regulate successfully against greed, whether the regulatory organisation is funded by the taxpayer or by practitioners in the financial services industry; if someone's going to take financial advantage of someone else, they'll do it regardless of the nature, structure and power of the regulatory régime concerned and be prepared to risk taking the consequences if subsequently convicted of having thereby committed a criminal offence.

There's no such thing as "the death of socialism", but what gives anyone the impression that purportedly socialist governments in Britain before and after MT "knew how to govern" (or, perhaps more impotantly still, were prepared to do so) any better than those headed by MT?

As to what you call "monetaristically-inspired mass unemployment", I have no evidence to suggest that governments led by MT regarded this or indeed any other "inspired" mass unemployment as a worth goal; that said, however, I also have no evidence to suggest that a Britain with sustainable full employment would necessarily be a Britain with any less inequalities than it has today (although I've always regarded reducing poverty as more important than reducing inequalities in the majority of cases).

Smashing the coal industry? It needed smashing! (or at least planned closure) but what didn't happen was its replacement by the development of a thriving industry in sustainable energy.

Anyway, to return to the topic, the petition is about how MT's funeral should be funded and why - and it is a patently ridiculous idea because not only is MT still alive, no one involved in it has appeared to question in advance the extent to which her family and her Estate would expect to fund it and, furthermore, since the notion of a "state funeral" presumes state funding, the very premise of the petition is contradictory, since one cannot have a "state funeral" funded by private industry.

[Pilchardman]

Trade Unions in the 1970s were undoubtedly too powerful for their own good, but what did removing most of their power actually achieve?

First, Trade Unions were not in some objective way "too powerful". They were "too powerful" for the neoliberal project. And what did cutting them down to size achieve? The acceptance of the new consensus.

If the edifice of the state is the castle, then civil society is the earth-works and ramparts supporting the structure. Without those to maintain the integrity of the castle, the stronghold falls.

Civil society is where consent is manufactured. The details of the hegemonic consensus are beaten out there in battles between a plurality of interest groups. (These interest groups, of course, intersect in a venn diagram of virtually opaque complexity).

For example, when the New Right (that is, the group of ideologues around Keith Joseph who propelled Thatcher to power) in the 70s sought to overturn the post war economic consensus (“Butskellism”), they needed to implant their ideology (neoliberalism) as the new commonsense: the “given”, which nobody questions. Civil society had to be made to adopt neoliberalism. Now, some sectors could be counted on (sections of the press, the CBI etc), others could not (the unions). Therefore, the position of the unions had to be undermined. Unions in the 70s were not “too powerful”, as the common consensus now has it, in some objective way, but too powerful for the purposes of the neoliberal project. So laws were enacted which would limit unions’ ability to act, and ultimately cause membership to seep away.

By that means and others, a new consensus within civil society was arrived at, which came to be called Thatcherism in the UK. The welfare state was restructured and a new compromise between capital and labour arrived at, as a result of the new balance within civil society. And the new ideology that has been swallowed by civil society includes the now unquestioned gem that trade unions had become "too powerful". This is code for "the labour pool needed to be liberalised, to free up supply and demand in the labour market, and additionally to allow us to get the new consensus accepted".

[ahinton]

First, Trade Unions were not in some objective way "too powerful". They were "too powerful" for the neoliberal project. And what did cutting them down to size achieve? The acceptance of the new consensus.

What Jayne Lee Wilson actually wrote swas that trade unions in the 1970s were undoubtedly too powerful for their own good; this is true, since the extent to which they represented their members and the general credibility that they managed to maintain each lessened to the point at which NUM, for example, had become an easy target by the early 1980s. One thing that "cutting them down to size" (whatever that may mean, whatever their size ought to be and disregarding the additional fact that "size" in terms of membership numbers alone is not everything) has achieved is an abatement in general public perception of them as militant socialist fundamentalist organisations bent on achieving greater power for themselves by means of the maximum possible disruption within the law. It's also worth remembering that trade union membership is by no means entirely made up of supporters of the Labour party and that, in any case, when increasing numbers of workers quite (voluntarily or otherwise) the employment market to go self-employed (as happened in the early days of MT and is happening again today), trade union membership decreases, for few self-employed people belong to such unions.

If the edifice of the state is the castle, then civil society is the earth-works and ramparts supporting the structure. Without those to maintain the integrity of the castle, the stronghold falls.

But what if it isn't?

Civil society is where consent is manufactured. The details of the hegemonic consensus are beaten out there in battles between a plurality of interest groups. (These interest groups, of course, intersect in a venn diagram of virtually opaque complexity).

That's fair comment, but special interest groups can flourish in any kind of democratic climate whether the government of the day is of right, left or centre inclination and, since the common interest of the populace is limited to specific categories, anything outside such interest will require such groups and the louder the voices the greater the likelihood of their success; that's a kind of "market force" that has even greater inevitability about it than has what we usually call "market forces". We all need good healthcare and education services, a good police service, good lawmaking and certain other services but, beyond this, it's everyone for him/herself in terms of individual interests (and I don't mean that in a necessarily combative or selfish way).

For example, when the New Right (that is, the group of ideologues around Keith Joseph who propelled Thatcher to power) in the 70s sought to overturn the post war economic consensus (“Butskellism”), they needed to implant their ideology (neoliberalism) as the new commonsense: the “given”, which nobody questions. Civil society had to be made to adopt neoliberalism. Now, some sectors could be counted on (sections of the press, the CBI etc), others could not (the unions). Therefore, the position of the unions had to be undermined. Unions in the 70s were not “too powerful”, as the common consensus now has it, in some objective way, but too powerful for the purposes of the neoliberal project. So laws were enacted which would limit unions’ ability to act, and ultimately cause membership to seep away.

What you miss here about unions is that the more militant and disruptive of their activities sometimes short-sightedly created difficulties for employers that resulted in their being able to employ less people, thereby damaging the interests of the very membership that they purported to represent. There were far more strikes, "work to rule" incidents and the like in those days than there are today yet, as I've always maintained, such actions are rarely more than a blunt instrument. Unions define a strike as "withdrawal of labour", which it isn't - it's "suspension of labour"; true withdrawal of labour requires the worker tendering his/her resignation. Even in the headiest days of strong trade unions, however, none of them ever recommended that their memberships withdraw their labour by resigning en masse and, had they done so successfully, the businesses concerned would have been forced to capitulate to union demands or be brought to their knees, especially were such businesses large state-funded ones such as education or health.

By that means and others, a new consensus within civil society was arrived at, which came to be called Thatcherism in the UK. The welfare state was restructured and a new compromise between capital and labour arrived at, as a result of the new balance within civil society. And the new ideology that has been swallowed by civil society includes the now unquestioned gem that trade unions had become "too powerful". This is code for "the labour pool needed to be liberalised, to free up supply and demand in the labour market, and additionally to allow us to get the new consensus accepted".

I don't believe a word of that. When sufficient people become sufficiently discontent with their lot in the workplace and start up new businesses, that "labour pool" is revealed as already liberalised. Furthermore, what you call the "unquestioned gem" didn't have to wait for the establishment of Thatcherism in order to manifest itself; there were plenty of people during the 70s who already thought that some unions had gotten too powerful for their own good and for the guaranteed good of their memberships. Furthermore, Thatcher was not "propelled to power" solely by Sir Keith Koseph and a group of ideologues around him; they might indeed have helped her into the party leadership position, but it was the majority of the electorate that put her party in power several years after she became its leader and they did so because of discontent with much of what had occurred under 1970s governments.

[Pilchardman]

Furthermore, Thatcher was not "propelled to power" solely by Sir Keith Koseph and a group of ideologues around him

I meant in the party.

[ahinton]

I meant in the party.

In retrospect, I did wonder, but you didn't make it clear first time around; even then, it would have resulted in far less had that propulson not eventually led to her party seizing power.