Margaret Thatcher's Funeral

Bertie Woot

Tomorrow morning, 17th April 2013, ex-British prime minister Margaret Thatcher shall receive a state funeral costing in the region of 8-10 million GBP. This shall be paid for by the British tax-payer, many of whom's antecedents were made redundant and unemployed by Thatcher's economic policies.

Barack Obama was invited but declined the offer and has instead opted to send a presidential delegation, none of which are active politicians. The US shall send George Shultz and James Baker, who both served as US secretary of state while Thatcher was in power.

Mass protests are planned with Socialists, Anarchists and general opponents of Thatcher set to turn their backs on her coffin, and to register their disapproval of a PM who rewarded the capitalist class and the wealthy elite whilst attempting to destroy the British working class when she was in power.

Shall you be glued to the telly paying your respects to Margaret Thatcher? Or perhaps popping open a bevy and celebrating her demise? Perhaps like many you shall be getting on with your morning and feel completely indifferent to the funeral of a PM who has been described as "a tyrant" and "a witch"?

Your views on Margaret Thatcher's grand and expensive state exit.

Cody Pomeray

My immediate thoughts and best wishes go out to the unfortunate police who are going to have to deal with the security headache. Especially in light of the Boston bombings.

Even though there is a developing consensus that Boston was a homegrown attack the timing is bad enough to present headaches to the Met.

As for Thatcher herself, I think she will be buried with greater dignity than how one might immediately expect based on her political career. As Russell Brand (of all people) said

Interestingly, one mate of mine, a proper leftie, in his heyday all Red Wedge and right-on punch-ups, was melancholy. "I thought I'd be overjoyed, but really it's just … another one bites the dust …" This demonstrates, I suppose, that if you opposed Thatcher's ideas it was likely because of their lack of compassion, which is really just a word for love. If love is something you cherish, it is hard to glean much joy from death, even in one's enemies.

I think that's great. And ironic too. Because a society that collectively overlooks - or even respects - the individual who denied their very existence who argued that society is a collective of selfish isolations, is the society that proves Thatcher wrong. Lets hope she takes her political philosophy with her, wherever she is going.

Fratton Fred

The thing that amazes me most about this, is just how much people in Ireland actually care.

I personally think the funeral is over the top. She was, after all, only a PM.but in terms of how much I care, I'm more concerned about Sensa Stark right now, her fate interests me far more than an ex prime minister's funeral.

Iwasfrozen

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I think that's great. And ironic too. Because a society that collectively overlooks - or even respects - the individual who denied their very existence who argued that society is a collective of selfish isolations, is the society that proves Thatcher wrong. Lets hope she takes her political philosophy with her, wherever she is going.

http://www.crazyivan.org/articles/Why%20Society%20Doesn't%20Exist.php

Galwayguy35

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The thing that amazes me most about this, is just how much people in Ireland actually care.

I personally think the funeral is over the top. She was, after all, only a PM.but in terms of how much I care, I'm more concerned about Sensa Stark right now, her fate interests me far more than an ex prime minister's funeral.

I don't care about the cost of the funeral, as it is the British taxpayer that has to foot that bill.

I can see why some of them aren't too happy about it though considering that the British economy is far from healthy and also that she was far from loved by many in Britain.

I can see similar protests over here whenever Berties time is up.

Cody Pomeray

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

http://www.crazyivan.org/articles/Why%20Society%20Doesn't%20Exist.php

As great a name as Crazy Ivan is, I'm not sure why we should listen to him.

gurramok

The funeral should be privatised, after all she was a champion of private enterprise.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

gurramok wrote: »

The funeral should be privatised, after all she was a champion of private enterprise.

lol, havent heard that before. that's hilarious. you're a funny guy.

Bertie Woot

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

My immediate thoughts and best wishes go out to the unfortunate police who are going to have to deal with the security headache. Especially in light of the Boston bombings.

The same poor unfortunate Police who beat the miners to a pulp under Thatcher? The same poor unfortunate Police who collectively lied through their teeth about Hillsborough? The Boston bombings may or may not be a taste of more to come, but most people who lived through the Thatcher era and who experienced Police brutality, lies and corruption at first hand shall not be concerned about the Police, but more concerned about the way protesters shall be treated by a Police force which has hitherto proven itself to be violent and corrupt throughout.

Even though there is a developing consensus that Boston was a homegrown attack the timing is bad enough to present headaches to the Met.

Maybe homegrown, but no doubt Al Qaeda or some other radical group was behind it. We'll find out soon enough.

As for Thatcher herself, I think she will be buried with greater dignity than how one might immediately expect based on her political career. As Russell Brand (of all people) said

It shall be interesting what percentage of those who turn out shall be protesters. Remembering that Margaret Thatcher herself was responsible for some of the worst rioting and scenes of violence during her political tenure, a little aggro seems inevitable.

I think that's great. And ironic too. Because a society that collectively overlooks - or even respects - the individual who denied their very existence who argued that society is a collective of selfish isolations, is the society that proves Thatcher wrong. Lets hope she takes her political philosophy with her, wherever she is going.

I'm an Agnostic and don't believe in a supernatural life after death hell, but Thatcher sure made a lot of people's lives here on earth a living hell during her premiership. Her ruthless dog-eat-dog political philosophy legitimised selfishness ruthlessness and greed, and the fat cat capitalist class who got richer during her time in office should really be made to foot the bill for her state funeral with all the trimmings, not the humble British tax-payer, who she persecuted.

gurramok wrote: »

The funeral should be privatised, after all she was a champion of private enterprise.

Agreed.

Iwasfrozen

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

As great a name as Crazy Ivan is, I'm not sure why we should listen to him.

Crazy Ivan speaks the truth, the concept of society is only useful in getting people to accept hardship in the name of the greater whole. But how can the greater whole benefit if each person is individually suffering?

Cody Pomeray

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Crazy Ivan speaks the truth, the concept of society is only useful in getting people to accept hardship in the name of the greater whole. But how can the greater whole benefit if each person is individually suffering?

You say individually suffering, I say co-operating.

Is it your position that there is no benefit to be had by leveraging human co-operation to produce communal benefits, like public infrastructure?

I presume not (because most reasonable people don't want us to retreat to individual caves)

In that case, it's not about the 'evils' of society in itself, it's about the pitfalls of 'too much' society. Which is a different thing altogether, and doesn't deny the actual existence of society.

super_furry

I honestly believe it should have been privatized. Let a private company arrange it, sell tickets and make whatever they can off it.

Cody Pomeray

Bertie Woot wrote: »

The same poor unfortunate Police who beat the miners to a pulp under Thatcher? The same poor unfortunate Police who collectively lied through their teeth about Hillsborough?

No they're probably different in fairness. Some of them wouldn't even have been born during either event.

Cetainly the ones that were senior officers during either Thatcher's administration, or Hillsborough, are very unlikely to be down on the streets protecting law and order tomorrow.

Madam

I'm becoming increasingly bored with the whole thing to be honest!

Iwasfrozen

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

You say individually suffering, I say co-operating.

Is it your position that there is no benefit to be had by leveraging human co-operation to produce communal benefits, like public infrastructure?

I presume not (because most reasonable people don't want us to retreat to individual caves)

In that case, it's not about the 'evils' of society in itself, it's about the pitfalls of 'too much' society. Which is a different thing altogether, and doesn't deny the actual existence of society.

And what exactly is communal benefit? It means benefiting each person individually. Each person who benefits from the service, in this case public transport, should pay equal to the utility they gain from it. Now obviously this is impossible to impose in reality but we can get closer to the ideal, for example with extra charges for using public transport during rush hour.

Cody Pomeray

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

And what exactly is communal benefit? It means benefiting each person individually. Each person who benefits from the service, in this case public transport, should pay equal to the utility they gain from it. Now obviously this is impossible to impose in reality but we can get closer to the ideal, for example with extra charges for using public transport during rush hour.

Again, you're not actually answering the question. Can we deal with the issue before moving on? Can you see that co-operatively pooling resources as a society (even if in a very limited way) can bestow advantages.

The question of how we organize taxation is another issue, one which only arises once the acceptance of some form of co-operative society has been agreed.

Fratton Fred

Bertie Woot wrote: »

The same poor unfortunate Police who beat the miners to a pulp under Thatcher? The same poor unfortunate Police who collectively lied through their teeth about Hillsborough?.

Are these the same poor unfortunate miners that beat and even killed non striking miners?

Iwasfrozen

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Again, you're not actually answering the question. Can we deal with the issue before moving on? Can you see that co-operatively pooling resources as a society (even if in a very limited way) can bestow advantages.

Yes but only advantages to the individual. If a group is benefited then it is only as a mass of individual people.

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

The question of how we organize taxation is another issue, one which only arises once the acceptance of some form of co-operative society has been agreed.

Of course co operative society exists. Look around you. But it only exists as a mass of individual people helping themselves.

A Dub in Glasgo

It is a bloated, over the top waste of public money that is turning into a Tory rally. Dignity in death? you must be joking with the haste to rewrite history and make political capital out of it all

Cody Pomeray

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes but only advantages to the individual. If a group is benefited then it is only as a mass of individual people.

Yes, this is what I call a social benefit.

If you don't like "social benefit" and prefer to name it "a mass of individual people in a society benefitting simultaneously from a social activity" then I'm afraid that is just a meaningless distinction with the same substantial meaning.

In effect, society exists, individuals benefit.

Now, you said "the concept of society is only useful in getting people to accept hardship".

Mustn't you in fact correct that, and say that the concept of society has benefits for individuals?

Iwasfrozen

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Yes, this is what I call a social benefit.

If you don't like "social benefit" and prefer to name it "a mass of individual people in a society benefitting simultaneously from a social activity" then I'm afraid that is just a meaningless distinction with the same substantial meaning.

In effect, society exists, individuals benefit.

Now, you said "the concept of society is only useful in getting people to accept hardship".

Mustn't you in fact correct that, and say that the concept of society has benefits for individuals?

I don't think you quite understand what I'm saying, when society benefits it is only a a mass of individual people "society" as you call it doesn't exist. On the other hand the term "society" can be used to coerce individuals to accept hardship in "the name of society" we see this often in socialist economic systems. But surely since the individual is suffering then "society" as a mass of individuals, since society has no distinct identity save for the representation of a group of individuals, is also suffering.

So if society gains when the individual gains, and loses as the individual loses, and perfect correlation between the two must always be maintained. Then the argument goes that society can't possibly exist. It is only an invented concept used to hold back the strongest and stop them devouring the weakest.

Fratton Fred

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

It is a bloated, over the top waste of public money that is turning into a Tory rally. Dignity in death? you must be joking with the haste to rewrite history and make political capital out of it all

As much as i find the celebration of her death distasteful, this funeral is way ott.

Cody Pomeray

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I don't think you quite understand what I'm saying, when society benefits it is only a a mass of individual people "society" as you call it doesn't exist.

But I have already said that I'm perfectly fine with the idea of society being a mass of individuals benefitting from a shared activity at the same time. I find that a meaningless distinction in substance. If you want to use that interpretation, then go ahead.

So if society gains when the individual gains, and loses as the individual loses, and perfect correlation between the two must always be maintained.

That's up to how society is run; that only comes after it is agreed that the theory of social co-operation benefitting individuals exists or can exist.

Whatever happens after that - horizontal equity, vertical equity, economic redistribution, or none of the above - is down to individuals engaging with one another and deciding what suits them best. Whatever they decide, they are co-operating. Whatever they agree to co-operate over, they do so in anticipation of drawing down individual benefits.

Iwasfrozen

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

But I have already said that I'm perfectly fine with the idea of society being a mass of individuals benefitting from a shared activity at the same time. I find that a meaningless distinction in substance. If you want to use that interpretation, then go ahead.

That's up to how society is run; that only comes after it is agreed that the theory of social co-operation benefitting individuals exists or can exist.

Whatever happens after that - horizontal equity, vertical equity, economic redistribution, or none of the above - is down to individuals engaging with one another and deciding what suits them best. Whatever they decide, they are co-operating. Whatever they agree to co-operate over, they do so in anticipation of drawing down individual benefits.

We both agree on the definition of society. Our divergence occurs where you accept this and I use it as proof that society doesn't really exist.

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

We both agree on the definition of society. Our divergence occurs where you accept this and I use it as proof that society doesn't really exist.

'Society doesn't exist'. Are you turning into a libertarian? That is one of their mantras, and they are just as wrong about that as everything else. Society very much exists.

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

'Society doesn't exist'. Are you turning into a libertarian? That is one of their mantras, and they are just as wrong about that as everything else. Society very much exists.

I'm libertarian leaning, yes. Small government is the only way to guarantee freedom.

Cody Pomeray

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

We both agree on the definition of society. Our divergence occurs where you accept this and I use it as proof that society doesn't really exist.

That I accept what, exactly?

I accept that lots of different versions of society appear to work - the social democratic model, the Anglo-American model, the Japanese model... it depends on each individual collective of individuals' expectations for co-operation.

The question of whether something fails or succeeds, or is palatable or unpalatable, depending on an individual's worldview, is entirely irrelevant.

It has no bearing on the question of whether or not that thing exists.

Bertie Woot

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Are these the same poor unfortunate miners that beat and even killed non striking miners?

Thatcher created the striking miners and consequently the rift between striking and non-striking miners. The strikers viewed the non-strikers as "scabs", and what they dished out in terms of violence was damaging to their own communities, but that was what Thatcher generated - division, violence and hatred. That is what she shall be remembered for.

Day of her funeral should be a (paid) public holiday. Those unemployed should get an additional day of social welfare. It's what she'd have wanted.

LordSutch

I queued to sign the book of condolence for Mrs Thatcher at the British Embassy in Dublin yesterday. Will also pay my respects tomorrow morning by watching some of the funeral as and when I can, I just hope the nay sayers don't kick off in London, because if they do, the police won't muck about & things could get ugly . . .

Madam

The BBC and all channels showing the ould witch being fetted will be forbidden in our house! Can't imagine why an Irishman would want to write a condolence for the witch!

LordSutch

Madam wrote: »

The BBC and all channels showing the ould witch being fetted will be forbidden in our house!
Can't imagine why an Irishman would want to write a condolence for the witch!

Like Michael D Higgins?

Madam

Thats different and you know it:p

LordSutch

The queue was quite impressive, which consisted of more than a few Irish people I'd bet.

Cody Pomeray

Madam wrote: »

The BBC and all channels showing the ould witch being fetted will be forbidden in our house! Can't imagine why an Irishman would want to write a condolence for the witch!

She's not being feted, the cameras are only there to make sure she's really gone this time.

Bertie Woot

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I don't think you quite understand what I'm saying, when society benefits it is only a a mass of individual people "society" as you call it doesn't exist. On the other hand the term "society" can be used to coerce individuals to accept hardship in "the name of society" we see this often in socialist economic systems. But surely since the individual is suffering then "society" as a mass of individuals, since society has no distinct identity save for the representation of a group of individuals, is also suffering.

Thatcher said there was "no such thing as society" as she was an exponent of ruthless individualistic capitalism and took a very cold and clinical view of what has been termed "society", but it would be wrong to suggest that society is an exclusively Socialist product or that it is used to "coerce individuals to accept hardship in the name of society". That's a purely negative interpretation of both Socialism and indeed society.

So if society gains when the individual gains, and loses as the individual loses, and perfect correlation between the two must always be maintained. Then the argument goes that society can't possibly exist. It is only an invented concept used to hold back the strongest and stop them devouring the weakest.

This is groundless logic. If society and the individual are in sync and both mutually gain and lose with economic fluctuation, this does not necessarily mean that there is no society, and to suggest that society is an "invented concept used to hold back the strongest and stop them devouring the weakest" again is baseless.

Many capitalists such as Bill Gates et al. who have gained billions from capitalism have ironically condemned capitalism and contributed millions of their fortune to charitable projects which benefit society.

Kinski

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

No they're probably different in fairness. Some of them wouldn't even have been born during either event.

Cetainly the ones that were senior officers during either Thatcher's administration, or Hillsborough, are very unlikely to be down on the streets protecting law and order tomorrow.

The Met don't have what you could call a clean record these days either - see the death of Ian Tomlinson a few years back.

TheUsual

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

She's not being feted, the cameras are only there to make sure she's really gone this time.

Was reading that her ashes should be pressed into a lump of coal.

And then burnt again.

doolox

I remember when on a visit to London that the wax figure of Adolf Hitler was placed in a corridor leading to the chamber of horrors as the curators could not decide where to place an effigy of such an indefineably evil man.

Maybe the wax effigy of Maggie should be placed beside Adolf in that hallway.

It remains to be seen if Scotland and the North of England continue to be neglected and run down as they are if they will make some attempt at breaking away from the UK. If this happens Thatchers policies will have had no small part in this break-up.

TheUsual

Maggie and Adolf.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGb5ZMr5jks

Fratton Fred

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Thatcher created the striking miners and consequently the rift between striking and non-striking miners. The strikers viewed the non-strikers as "scabs", and what they dished out in terms of violence was damaging to their own communities, but that was what Thatcher generated - division, violence and hatred. That is what she shall be remembered for.

it was the NUM that opted to strike. 20 mines out of 187 were to be closed because they were running up huge losses. the miners response was not to talk, or negotiate but to call an all out strike.

Arthur Scargill created the strike and should be remembered for its consequences.

Fratton Fred

doolox wrote: »

I remember when on a visit to London that the wax figure of Adolf Hitler was placed in a corridor leading to the chamber of horrors as the curators could not decide where to place an effigy of such an indefineably evil man.

Maybe the wax effigy of Maggie should be placed beside Adolf in that hallway.

what a ridiculous statement.

the level of maturity in these thatcher threads is alarming at best.

Rascasse

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

It is a bloated, over the top waste of public money that is turning into a Tory rally. Dignity in death? you must be joking with the haste to rewrite history and make political capital out of it all

This is nonsense. As has been pointed out by the UK media, her funeral plans were drawn up under Tony Blair.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Arthur Scargill created the strike and should be remembered for its consequences.

It was funny watching one of the Tory ministers recalling the miners strike. He said of Scargill 'what fool would start a miners strike in the spring?'. Added to the the fact that the government had increased coal stockpiles after the strike threat in '81 and that many homes had converted to gas or electric central heating, it was doomed from the start. Not that it stopped Scargill.


Personally I don't have any interest in the service tomorrow but, knowing how the protestors won't be able to help themselves, I will be tuning in to watch the Met play a little 'Whack-a-Trot', 'bash the commie' etc... Always enjoyable.

A Dub in Glasgo

Rascasse wrote: »

This is nonsense. As has been pointed out by the UK media, her funeral plans were drawn up under Tony Blair.

What is nonsesne? The bit about it being a bloated over the top waste of money or the bit that it is turning into a rally for the Tories?

Happyman42

The obscenity about this tory fest is that it shows how a major lack of compassion and concern is still evident in Conservatives. Any decent government would accept that this woman was divisive, even in retirement and have organised a quiet dignified service. To rub salt into still open wounds in the way they are doing is just asking for trouble.
I'd imagine the money to protect her grave will be high as well. Where is she being buried btw?

Cody Pomeray

Happyman42 wrote: »

Where is she being buried btw?

Some place in Chelsea. Wonder if it has a dancefloor.

Rascasse

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

What is nonsesne? The bit about it being a bloated over the top waste of money or the bit that it is turning into a rally for the Tories?

Both. Since the state funeral of Churchill, the last time a politician was honoured with a big funeral in Britain, Ireland has held 12 state funerals for politicians. Seems positively frugal. Anyway, the costs being touted are likely grossly inflated.

Also, as I've already pointed out, the funeral was planned in the late 90's by Blair, Thatcher and (I assume) the Cabinet Office. If a Labour government thought the arrangements were appropriate I can't see how it can now be called a Tory rally.

Happyman42 wrote: »

The obscenity about this tory fest is that it shows how a major lack of compassion and concern is still evident in Conservatives. Any decent government would accept that this woman was divisive, even in retirement and have organised a quiet dignified service. To rub salt into still open wounds in the way they are doing is just asking for trouble.

Wherever the service was held it would attract the anarchists, pinkos, communist worker mobs, bored students, etc. They are in the minority (however much noise they make) so why should the country bow to them?

Happyman42 wrote: »

I'd imagine the money to protect her grave will be high as well. Where is she being buried btw?

Her ashes will be interred next to Denis' outside the Margaret Thatcher Infirmary at the Royal Hospital Chelsea. I'd imagine that it's closed to the public due to the nature of the building.

Bertie Woot

Without wishing to incite violence, who wouldn't like to punch George Osborne in the face:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2310360/Margaret-Thatchers-funeral-Emotional-George-Osborne-wipes-away-tear-friends-enemies-united-pay-respects-Britains-female-PM.html

Crying for Margaret Thatcher just seems totally alien and incomprehensible to me.

walshb

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Without wishing to incite violence, who wouldn't like to punch George Osborne in the face:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2310360/Margaret-Thatchers-funeral-Emotional-George-Osborne-wipes-away-tear-friends-enemies-united-pay-respects-Britains-female-PM.html

Crying for Margaret Thatcher just seems totally alien and incomprehensible to me.

Crocodile tears!

Madd Finn

LordSutch wrote: »

I queued to sign the book of condolence for Mrs Thatcher at the British Embassy in Dublin yesterday. .

As befits a Monster Raving Loony.

ardmacha

Appropriate for Quinn to go. Thatcher had her challenges with lefty academics, and Oxford didn't give her an honorary PhD, she'd be proud to see a man there representing Ireland that was proposing passing a law to cut the salaries of these troublesome Dons.