Petition for Thatcher's state funeral to be privatised

[teamsaint]

The problem with giving Margaret Thatcher a state funeral has been clearly illustrated by this thread. The petty, cheap, predictable sniping from the left, such as the comment above, would be just the tip of the iceberg. I really don't know why you people can't just move on. She left office over 20 years ago for goodness sake.

Get over it.

we have moved on.
Anyway, some of those mining villages would make a lovely backdrop.

and I think you should apologise. I don't like to be associated with the left. Or right. Or middle !!

[John Skelton]

the left ... I really don't know why you people can't just move on. She left office over 20 years ago for goodness sake.

Get over it.

Couldn't agree more. I wish "the right' would stop trying to foist nonsense like this state funeral on people who don't share their libidinal-political obsession with Margaret Thatcher. Honestly, it's a bit ... sick.

:o

[Flosshilde]

However, I am expecting to be given an extra day off as its soooooooo important that we mark the occasion , so that will be a bonus.

With sponsored street dances?

[Pilchardman]

The problem with giving Margaret Thatcher a state funeral has been clearly illustrated by this thread. The petty, cheap, predictable sniping from the left, such as the comment above, would be just the tip of the iceberg. I really don't know why you people can't just move on. She left office over 20 years ago for goodness sake.

Get over it.

The "left" has not proposed this state funeral. It was the work of Labour in office, being followed up by this lot.

However on the issue of her having left office 20 years ago, she may well have, but her clones have not. The legacy of Thatcherism lives on in all three mainstream parties.

[ahinton]

Is that some kind of title she's been awarded? Or perhaps it's a pub in Chingford.

It isn't the former although, for all that I know, it might be the latter; be that as it may, the one certainty is that it's typo that I appreciate your drawing to my atention and which I have now corrected!

[ahinton]

A Hinton- come on, own up. You're really a lawyer, aren't you??

No - and, for the record, I've not signed that petition either. If you're not already aware of what I do, it wouldn't give you much trouble to find out!

[ahinton]

The problem with giving Margaret Thatcher a state funeral has been clearly illustrated by this thread. The petty, cheap, predictable sniping from the left, such as the comment above, would be just the tip of the iceberg. I really don't know why you people can't just move on. She left office over 20 years ago for goodness sake.

Get over it.

She did indeed leave office more than two decades ago but the negative aspects of her legacy still affect people today, just as those of Gordon Brown will continue to do for the foreseeable future.

The real problem here, however, is not that but the fact that no one has yet clarified how a funeral can be deemed to be a "state" one if it's privately funded and managed and, until and unless it is so, the entire principle of the petition as worded remains fundamentally flawed.

[Ferretfancy]

I don't know about a pub in Chingford, but I've been to Port Stanley and we were taken on a tour, showing us Thatcher Drive and the remaining bits of barbed wire surrounding the remaining bit of minefield on the outskirts of the town. The place is a hell hole, with unmade roads leading to nowhere, but used by huge 4 X 4s. The arrogance of the locals takes some beating, they tell you all the time how proud they are to be British. All the dirty work around the place is done by Argentinians who are treated as serfs by the Brits. It was, to say the least, an unedifying spectacle, reminding me of my time in the Suez Canal Zone, and the way we treated the Egyptians sixty years ago.

The population of the Falklands has nearly doubled since the war, with most of the extras posted there as " advisors " and technical personnel. They are supposed to get a living by issuing fishing permits, but most consumer goods are flown in from Britain every week. As there are no secondary schools, Falklands teenagers are sent to boarding schools here, at the taxpayer's expense of course, although I don't grudge them that, anybody in their right mind at that age would want to leave.

[ahinton]

in your edit, 5 mins after my post.

Not as such, no; I had already written that before I could see yours and the fact that I was writing that post is why I did not see yours until after posting what I did; in any case, I'm not accusing you of unoriginality as you appear to imply - merely agreeing with you!

There will be no privately funded and managed state funeral. Not for The Margaret Thatcher nor for anyone else.

Given that, as I've also written more than once, I cannot see how any "state funeral" could be such if it's privately funded and managed, I agree with you about this, too.

I thought that was understood from the very beginning?

You understand it. I understand it. I'm less sure that everyone else does, including the instigator of and signatories (Tories?!) to the petition as it is currently worded; indeed, I pointed out the flaw in its wording earlier and, were the petition simply to be against MT being given a state funeral, it would be clearer and more credible. In the circumstances, however, why do you appear to be so interested in the rising number of signatories to it if, even if the tally gets to exceed the crucial 100,000, any subsequent Parliamentary debate on the subject would not in any case result in MT being given a state funeral at all?

[ahinton]

I don't know about a pub in Chingford, but I've been to Port Stanley and we were taken on a tour, showing us Thatcher Drive and the remaining bits of barbed wire surrounding the remaining bit of minefield on the outskirts of the town. The place is a hell hole, with unmade roads leading to nowhere, but used by huge 4 X 4s. The arrogance of the locals takes some beating, they tell you all the time how proud they are to be British. All the dirty work around the place is done by Argentinians who are treated as serfs by the Brits. It was, to say the least, an unedifying spectacle, reminding me of my time in the Suez Canal Zone, and the way we treated the Egyptians sixty years ago.

The population of the Falklands has nearly doubled since the war, with most of the extras posted there as " advisors " and technical personnel. They are supposed to get a living by issuing fishing permits, but most consumer goods are flown in from Britain every week. As there are no secondary schools, Falklands teenagers are sent to boarding schools here, at the taxpayer's expense of course, although I don't grudge them that, anybody in their right mind at that age would want to leave.

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.

[Mr Pee]

No - and, for the record, I've not signed that petition either. If you're not already aware of what I do, it wouldn't give you much trouble to find out!

I know you're not really a lawyer, and I know that you're a composer, however some of your posts do remind me of "lawyerspeak"!!

[Pilchardman]

why do you appear to be so interested in the rising number of signatories to it if, even if the tally gets to exceed the crucial 100,000, any subsequent Parliamentary debate on the subject would not in any case result in MT being given a state funeral at all?

Well, that is entirely to do with the nature of these petitions.

The government e-petitions are not a means of influencing government. New Labour knew that well when they instigated them. They are - like any other public consultation - a means for the authorities to say: "we listened; we aren't going to do what you want, but we listened". They are similar, in that respect, to sea shanties in days of yore. They are, if you will, a chance to call the Captain and First Mate "t*ssers" without any come back.

We have, in this democracy of ours, very few means by which we - the public - can raise issues. In elections, we have a choice between 3 flavours of neoliberalism. The issues we care about may be discussed, but the solutions on offer will be from a very, very narrow band of possibilities. Much like a cafe that offers you sugar in your tea from this spoon, or sugar from that spoon. You can't ask for no sugar, because that isn't on offer; you may only vote for which spoon.

Blair understood that the public felt powerless, and so introduced the e-petitions. Like all New Labour scams to that effect, they don't change the powerlessness. But Blair hoped they'd change the perception. He was wrong, though. Most people understood perfectly well that these e-petitions were sea shanties. Read them. Read this one. It isn't a serious attempt to get the private sector involved in state funerals. It is very arch, but also to-the-point.

It is saying: "We know very well that free market values are good for the masses, but not for the business elite and its champions".

Baroness Thatcher, when in power, ruined millions of lives on purpose. She did it for a number of reasons, but prime amongst those reasons was to bring down inflation. She said so, Tebbit said so, and most of all Keith Joseph said so. Openly, and specifically. Unemployment is a tool to bring down inflation. Only the unemployment she created was not temporary in all cases. She created a pool of permanent unemployment that has been with us now for generations. The consequences of which we are reaping in society today. Along with the atomisation of society (another deliberate New Right policy, which Blair and Brown both picked up and ran with). This is her legacy. The destruction of community. Because doing that is "good for business". It's the logic of supply and demand. The labour market must run freely. And the welfare state must be dismantled, because that impedes the labour market.

The wealthy, though, that's another issue. The bankers get a welfare state. It's good for them. It isn't good for us, but it's good for them.

And that is what the petition is about. To say "we know". Not to affect government policy. But to embarrass government.

[ahinton]

I know you're not really a lawyer, and I know that you're a composer, however some of your posts do remind me of "lawyerspeak"!!

OK, but since the subject under discussion is a petition to Parliament which is where laws are made and amended, is that particularly inappropriate?!...

[ahinton]

Well, that is entirely to do with the nature of these petitions.

The government e-petitions are not a means of influencing government. New Labour knew that well when they instigated them. They are - like any other public consultation - a means for the authorities to say: "we listened; we aren't going to do what you want, but we listened". They are similar, in that respect, to sea shanties in days of yore. They are, if you will, a chance to call the Captain and First Mate "t*ssers" without any come back.

We have, in this democracy of ours, very few means by which we - the public - can raise issues. In elections, we have a choice between 3 flavours of neoliberalism. The issues we care about may be discussed, but the solutions on offer will be from a very, very narrow band of possibilities. Much like a cafe that offers you sugar in your tea from this spoon, or sugar from that spoon. You can't ask for no sugar, because that isn't on offer; you may only vote for which spoon.

Blair understood that the public felt powerless, and so introduced the e-petitions. Like all New Labour scams to that effect, they don't change the powerlessness. But Blair hoped they'd change the perception. He was wrong, though. Most people understood perfectly well that these e-petitions were sea shanties. Read them. Read this one. It isn't a serious attempt to get the private sector involved in state funerals. It is very arch, but also to-the-point.

It is saying: "We know very well that free market values are good for the masses, but not for the business elite and its champions".

Baroness Thatcher, when in power, ruined millions of lives on purpose. She did it for a number of reasons, but prime amongst those reasons was to bring down inflation. She said so, Tebbit said so, and most of all Keith Joseph said so. Openly, and specifically. Unemployment is a tool to bring down inflation. Only the unemployment she created was not temporary in all cases. She created a pool of permanent unemployment that has been with us now for generations. The consequences of which we are reaping in society today. Along with the atomisation of society (another deliberate New Right policy, which Blair and Brown both picked up and ran with). This is her legacy. The destruction of community. Because doing that is "good for business". It's the logic of supply and demand. The labour market must run freely. And the welfare state must be dismantled, because that impedes the labour market.

The wealthy, though, that's another issue. The bankers get a welfare state. It's good for them. It isn't good for us, but it's good for them.

And that is what the petition is about. To say "we know". Not to affect government policy. But to embarrass government.

Broadly speaking, I can accept the points that you make here and why it is that you make them, even if I do not entirely agree with them. If this entire petition business is in truth nothing more than a "sea-shanty"-like exercise in mock-accountability, it is, as a piece of legislation no more worth the paper on which it's written than the petitions it enables and purports to encourage are worth the paper on which they aren't written, but we're not discussing the principle of this 100,000-petitioner in terms of its practical legislative value but a specific petition in which the conflicting notions of a "state funeral" and the private funding and management of a funeral one are ostensibly presented as compatible merely on the basis that its subject is the same person, which is risible; if the instigator's purpose was merely to mock the legislation that enables such petitions, then it's clearly more of a joke than a genuine petition worthy of the attention of 16,000+ signatories.

As to this being any kind of "embarrassment to government", it's shot itself in both feet, given that the only conceivable government response to it, whether or not it reaches the 100,000 figure, is one of wry amusement.

[Pilchardman]

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.

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.

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