Petition for Thatcher's state funeral to be privatised

[ahinton]

I hope it gets its 100,000 signatories. I hope it is discussed in parliament. But I know very well that it even if it gets the 100,000 signatures it will be rejected, and so does the petitioner.

OK - one bit at a time. Do you know Scott Morgan personally and has he told you - or do you otherwise possess incontrovertible evidence - that he knows that the petition will be rejected if it ever reaches the stage where it is debated in Parliament? Or are you merely surmising here? If indeed what you say here is the case, Mr Morgan's motives are clearly more destructive than they might at first appear, for it would follow that he is content to condone and indeed encourage the wasting of valuable Parliamentary time on the debate of something whose outcome is known in advance and which is hardly the kind of matter for general public concern that has any business to be debated there. Furthermore, if it fails to attract the requisite number of signatories, the only possuble embarrassment willbe on the part of the instigator and those who have signed the petition. Another question here is that, since no government has promised a state funeral for Margaret Thatcher, the thrust of any petition relating to it must by definition be based upon speculation rather than the taking of a stand against one which, incidentally, it does not even do in any case, preferring instead to throw practical logic to the winds and argue that any such state funeral - were one to be given - should be privately funded and managed, thereby removing from it the "state" element and defeating its own argument.

For the record, incidentally, the fact that I have no in-principle objection to the piece of legislation that enabled this 100,000 petition facility to do what it does might appear, even to you, to suggest that my take on it is less cynical than yours.

The government itself will of course not be red in the face. These are people who know no shame. Rather, it is the public discussion of the matters that will be raised that counts. In fact, that is happening already.

The first of your statements here contravene your previous one in which you wrote about "embarrassment to government" as the outcome to be welcomed! If in fact the government of the day - which, as you rightly observed, is not the one that brought in this piece of legislation - is comprosed of people who "know no shame", one may reasonably deduce that you believe the government that did bring it in was likewise comprised, which facts, taken together, suggest that you take a cynical view of any British government in terms of who within it might genuniely seek to achieve something for the public good as rightly expected of them by the electorate that includes those who voted them in.

As to "public discussion", it's likely to be of little if any value if the petition fails to attract 100,000 signatories and little more if it does so but is subsequently thrown out following debate in the House of Commons, unless the public gets so worked up about it regardleess of the outcome of such debate that it somehow contrives to force a General Election as a consequence, which doesn't seem especially likely. What's more important in regard to any possible "public discussion", however, is what it is that the public might be expected to discuss and, until a state funeral for MT is formally debated in and then legitimised by Parliament, there's nothing to discuss other than opinions upon what might of might be deemed acceptable in circumstances that are yet to arise.

seriously petitioning one's overlords is never a strong strategy. But good petitions can at times be a fun way to raise issues, and this is the best one I've seen for a long time.

"Seriously petitioning one's overlords" - even leaving aside that one's so-called "overlords" are not one's "overlords" at all but Members of Parliament funded by the taxpayer and elected by those of us who take advantage of their entitlement to vote - may not be the strongest strategy but, as I stated earlier, I don't see it as an instrument too blunt to be of any use at any time. Indeed, as you then state in what sounds almost like a counter-argument to your own observation here, "good petitions can at times be a fun way to raise issues"; whilst "fun" is not an essential in such matters, especially if the subject of a petition is as serious as one has a right to expect if it's to go before Parliament for debate, petitioning it is indeed, as you say, one way to raise issues, as I believe must have been agreed by those who concocted and passed the petitioning legislation in the first place. That said, if this particular issue is, in such a context, "the best one (that you've) seen for a long time", either your view of the others must be extremely negative or you don't get or accept the purpose for which this petitioning facility is intended or your view of governments and Parliament is so jaded that you don't care if trivia that's not even contrived of logic - such as one in which a privately funded and managed event is advocated in the guise of a "state funeral" - be presented to the public in the form of a petition that, were it to reach its requisite 100,000 tally, would have to be debated in Parliament, thereby wasting the valuable time of public servants (MPs) whom we pay to be there and to try to do things that are genuinely in the general public interest.

You are right in a way, though. Sea shanties are a terrible basket to put all ones eggs in.

Uncertain as I cannot help but remain as to the precise intended meaning of "sea shanties" in the context in which you've used the term more than once here, I might in principle be inclined nevertheless to agree with your argument insofar as I understand it as presented, at least to the extent that it migh presumably be a better use of such baskets were they to be filled instead with those wonderful creatures that we know and love as pilchards.

[Ferretfancy]

Interesting. Thatcher's "Falklands" legacy has never been something of which to be proud and your observations here about the islands in more recent times bears this out admirably, if also most unpleasantly.

ahinton,

Perhaps I was a bit forceful in my view of life in Port Stanley, but you can have no idea of what a depressing place it can be. There are, of course, Falklanders whose families have lived there for generations. Broadly speaking they are usually farmers who live away from the capital, very nice to meet, and generous in spirit. However, the bulk of the population are much more recent arrivals, and I found their jingoism very hard to accept, especially as it is supported by large amounts of aid from Britain. I really feel that soldiers should not have died to make it possible for them to behave worse than dinosaurs in their attitude to the world outside.
Both Britain and Argentina have claims which should be resolved by negotiation, not by cheering the sinking of the Belgrano.

[ahinton]

ahinton,

Perhaps I was a bit forceful in my view of life in Port Stanley, but you can have no idea of what a depressing place it can be. There are, of course, Falklanders whose families have lived there for generations. Broadly speaking they are usually farmers who live away from the capital, very nice to meet, and generous in spirit. However, the bulk of the population are much more recent arrivals, and I found their jingoism very hard to accept, especially as it is supported by large amounts of aid from Britain. I really feel that soldiers should not have died to make it possible for them to behave worse than dinosaurs in their attitude to the world outside.
Both Britain and Argentina have claims which should be resolved by negotiation, not by cheering the sinking of the Belgrano.

I didn't read your post as "a bit forceful" on that subject and it is indeed clear that your personal experience had enabled you to hit some nails squarely on the head; you've done so even more forcefully and sensitively now, for which I can only express my appreciation. British people have inhabited those islands for enough years for the gung-ho attitude of the Thatcher government in the early 1980s to be understandable on one level, even if not otherwise in any sense justifiable; there's been all too much colonisation over the centuries by a number of countries including Britain and the very fact of British people inhabiting those relatively inhospitable islands today is one consequence of this; it would accordingly be as unjust to treat them as though they own the place with their rights holding sway over anyone else's as it would be to seek peremptorily to dispossess them on the grounds that Argentina's geographical rights on those islands matter more than the lives of those current British inhabitants of Las Malvinas. As you so rightly observe, resolution by negotiation (not that anyone in his/her right mind could reasonably pretend that this would be easy) rather than as an outcome of inordinate gung-ho cheering of either side's perceived "victory" at any time over the other is vital. That said, the geographical position of those islands vis-à-vis Britain and ditto vis-à-vis Argentina should surely tell us all something useful here...

[Rumbaba]

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.

[LeMartinPecheur]

I fully support a state funeral for dear Mrs Thatcher...




...just so long as it's in the Falkland Islands

[scottycelt]

I fully support a state funeral for dear Mrs Thatcher...




...just so long as it's in the Falkland Islands

If the undeniably world-famous Lady desperately desires a state funeral (which cynical old non-political me very much doubts), I'm sure she could very likely 'enjoy' one in, say, either the USA or Poland.

What a miserable, insular, narrow-minded nation we are, at times ...

Merry Christmas & Happy New Year, Lady T, and many of them!

[Sydney Grew]

What a miserable, insular, narrow-minded nation we are, at times ...

'Lady Thatcher has spoken publicly for the first time of her regret at the "impossible" situation she faced while trying to negotiate the handover of Hong Kong to China.

'In her first interview for almost five years, the former prime minister has revealed her disappointment at failing to persuade Deng Xiaoping, the former Chinese premier, to let Britain extend its lease on the colony.

'In a rare dropping of her guard, she admits to feeling "sad" when, seven years after she had left office in 1990, Britain's and Hong Kong's 145-year relationship ended, bringing down the final curtain on the British Empire.

'"What I wanted was a continuation of British administration," she says in the radio interview, to be broadcast later this month.

'"But when this proved impossible, I saw the opportunity to preserve most of what was unique to Hong Kong through applying Mr Deng's [one country, two systems] idea to our circumstances." '


Yes . . . well . . . what she through her crocodile tears does NOT mention there is how the perfidious British government (Callaghan's not hers though) had well in advance removed the unrestricted right of abode in Britain (which they had previously possessed) from most of the holders of full British passports in Hong Kong. An unashamed and blatant racial criterion was used there: the right of abode was removed from British passport holders of Chinese race (and from a few Indians resident in HK), but not from the Caucasians.

And of course the Falklanders, being Caucasian, retain that right to this day.

[scottycelt]

'Lady Thatcher has spoken publicly for the first time of her regret at the "impossible" situation she faced while trying to negotiate the handover of Hong Kong to China.

'In her first interview for almost five years, the former prime minister has revealed her disappointment at failing to persuade Deng Xiaoping, the former Chinese premier, to let Britain extend its lease on the colony.

'In a rare dropping of her guard, she admits to feeling "sad" when, seven years after she had left office in 1990, Britain's and Hong Kong's 145-year relationship ended, bringing down the final curtain on the British Empire.

'"What I wanted was a continuation of British administration," she says in the radio interview, to be broadcast later this month.

'"But when this proved impossible, I saw the opportunity to preserve most of what was unique to Hong Kong through applying Mr Deng's [one country, two systems] idea to our circumstances." '


Yes . . . well . . . what she through her crocodile tears does NOT mention there is how the perfidious British government (Callaghan's not hers though) had well in advance removed the unrestricted right of abode in Britain (which they had previously possessed) from most of the holders of full British passports in Hong Kong. An unashamed and blatant racial criterion was used there: the right of abode was removed from British passport holders of Chinese race (and from a few Indians resident in HK), but not from the Caucasians.

And of course the Falklanders, being Caucasian, retain that right to this day.

So, as far as I can now interpret your post, Lady T is now being blamed for the 'racist' policies of an Old Labour Government, headed by Sunny Jim ?

However, there is a genuine connection between the two governments here ...

Thatcher-style monetarist policies were actually begun by that former Communist & Old Labour Chancellor, Denis Healey, after he had to beg the IMF for money as no one else would lend to the country at affordable interest rates. Mrs T's government merely carried the process forward, though, of course, many unwelcome 'liberal economy' extras like the ridiculous and grossly unfair Poll Tax came with it later.

Anyway, it's Xmas, so Best Wishes, Mr Grew!

[Serial_Apologist]

So, as far as I can now interpret your post, Lady T is now being blamed for the 'racist' policies of an Old Labour Government, headed by Sunny Jim ?

However, there is a genuine connection between the two governments here ...

Thatcher-style monetarist policies were actually begun by that former Communist & Old Labour Chancellor, Denis Healey, after he had to beg the IMF for money as no one else would lend to the country at affordable interest rates. Mrs T's government merely carried the process forward, though, of course, many unwelcome 'liberal economy' extras like the ridiculous and grossly unfair Poll Tax came with it later.

Anyway, it's Xmas, so Best Wishes, Mr Grew!

My goodness me - yes indeed, how desperate one surely is to cite some harmful governmental deed one need not pin on Mrs T!

[RobertLeDiable]

It is premature to be in the public domain. I don't like the elderly being kicked around, whoever they are.

Presumably it's in the public domain because someone has leaked the fact that government circles (Maude and others) have begun the planning for a state funeral. Either the leaker is a dissident or the leak is deliberate to 'test the water' to see what the puiblic reaction would be. As French Frank says, the Tories (they probably haven't bothered to consult the LibDems) would be stark staring bonkers if they think this is a good idea. It would be an obvious rallying point for opposition to the coalition's policies, which many rightly believe are a product of thatcherite thinking, and that protest would clearly be supported by a very large proportion of the population - possibly a majority. This would be a massively divisive event (even a Tory like Peter Oborne says so) and it could easily be a huge embarrassment to the government.

Churchill was one thing. His funeral took place when the memory of his role in the 2nd War was fresh for many, and even those who would never have voted for his party felt gratitude for his leadership in the country's darkest hour. But Thatcher most certainly does not have that special place, above politics, in the nation's history. Amost nobody would argue against Churchill as a major player in preserving our freedoms. Probably half the population would argue against the idea that Thatcher's period in office was good for Britain, so a state funeral as a measure of national gratitude is not appropriate.

The woman herself might well be in favour of it. But she was always very interested in aggrandising her self and her family. She made sure her ridiculous husband got a hereditary baronetcy so that her even more absurd son and his heirs would inherit a title. That in itself should disqualify her from anything other than a large national raspberry when she finally pops her clogs.

[Pilchardman]

wasting the valuable time of public servants (MPs) whom we pay to be there and to try to do things that are genuinely in the general public interest.

Lol.

[Mr Pee]

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......

[mangerton]

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

........ she queried all the costs and paid 19 quid of her own cash for an ironing board.

So I should hope. She was known as the Iron Lady.

[Serial_Apologist]

So I should hope. She was known as the Iron Lady.

(That creased me up!)

[Barbirollians]

I agree almost entirely with Peter Oborne's view - it is wholly inappropriate for a faction leading PM no matter whether of the left or right . I hated her government with a passion but would take exactly the same view about a Labour PM . Attlee would have been much more deserving of it as he did so much of managing domestic policy during WW2 as well as leading the 1945-51 Government that created the NHS and the welfare state but rightly he did not receive one .

If she does get one I am afraid I foresee demonstrations and uproar . An idea that should be swiftly dropped.