Thatcher has died

Her coffin will be carried on a gun carriage. Hmm...........

I do object to roads being closed for Margaret Thatcher's funeral. Anybody with a taxed and insured vehicle is entitled to drive on those roads at any time.
Also I hope the tax payers will not be funding expenses like extra police for the funeral.

Frank

There is an impressive degree of arrogance in making it clear that she didn't want a state funeral. I have to say that I think cremation is wise – a marked grave would be a magnet for fools, bores and loonies of all political colours and none.

Thanks greatnan. I know very little about politics. I think John smith would have been a good Prime Minister too. I did admire Margaret Thatcher but certainly not towards the end of her "reign".

Greatnan you asked how the news is being taken here - ambivalent I suppose. Here's our Queensland daily newspaper:

www.couriermail.com.au/news/world/margaret-thatcher-dies-some-pay-tribute-while-others-party-in-the-streets/story-fnd12peo-1226615333516

I knew she was a bad 'un from the start, but I left the UK the year she got elected, and watched her deeds with horror from afar. Her father used to be on the boards for poor relief, and when the starving poor went to claim a few shillings, they just went home if he was there, rather than be humiliated. She loved an admired him. Nuff said.

Like gracesmum and harrigran I find this display of unpleasantness disturbing. Will someone admit that they have been dancing around singing "hurray the witch is dead" ?

I would not dream of behaving in that fashion, Ceesnan.
I am puzzled to keep reading that she 'saved' Britain. If she did, why are things so bad now?

The BBC this morning was describing how the news of Baroness Thatcher's death has been received in America. I was astonished to hear a newreader/anchorman say that she came to power after 30 years of socialism in Britain.

Her mind died some years ago. Her body yesterday. But her legacy of a more selfish Britain, an intolerance of the weak and vulnerable lives on.

Undoubtedly, she was a powerful and effective PM and succeeded in transforming this country so that the centre ground has moved inexorably to the right.

However, I have to say that in many ways my anger is greater towards James Callaghan and some TU leaders who destroyed Barbara Castles's In Place of Strife. If that had been put in place with the rule of law regulating the unions, we might have had cooperation instead of confrontation. And a much kinder country.

Good article here.

Tony Blair had many failings but coming up with a good soundbite wasn't one of them. However, David Cameron really doesn't have the knack. She was the "patriotic prime minister' just doesn't match up to the "people's princess" and makes one think that even he considers all the others to have been self-seeking b******s.

Her son doesn't seem to have much time for Britain. What a little, snivelling twerp - apparently she adored him. Carole has always been rather ambivalent about her childhood.

I didn't like Mrs Thatcher, I never voted for her. I thought her effect on this country was divisive and deleterious.

But I respect her. She was a conviction politician with a clear set of principles which she stood by and defended. Since then we have had a set of devious and shifty Prime Ministers of both parties who wouldn't recognise a principle if it climbed into bed with them smoking a pipe.

David Cameron's mealy mouthed tribute to her was drawn up with one eye on the opinion polls and the other on the many Thatcherites still active in his party. She was a woman who succeeded where no other woman has succeeded before, who was Prime Minister longer than any other Prime Minister in her century. She trod the international stage like a Colossus and was widely respected by political leaders through out the world. Respect where respect is due.

Thoroughly enjoyed the blog from this intelligent young man. Wish I could write so.

I must say that the sight of students partying in the street and champagne corks popping is rather sick don't you think? Whatever her politics she wasn't a murdering dictator just a hard line politician who happened to be the first woman prime minister. Most of the students "celebrating her death" probably weren't even born when she was in power, or if they were they were too small to know the difference.

I fear the scale of the funeral,it will be a debacle,a huge mistake.

Bags Thank you. Very interesting.

And, on a tangent , I know, but her declining years were spent protected and nursed and with every comfort. And I contrast that with what is happening to Mishap's Dad and others on here who have shared their sad stories about their frail and vulnerable parents. A divided society indeed.

I will admit to Hurray the Witch is dead. I never had a good word to say about her when she was alive and I'm certainly not going to say anything good about her now she's dead.

I remember the Seventies. I also remember that a union is made up of it's members i.e. the workers otherwise known by some as 'the enemy within'. Breaking the workers was part of Maggie's plan because a capitalist country can't have a strong workforce and in her opinion and that of her chief propagandist, Rupert Murdoch, the workers were becoming too strong.

I'm not saying that everything the workers did was right but then it wasn't in their interest to totally undermine industry either. Maggie waged war on the workers and won by destroying the very industries that employed them. I know the industries were struggling but they were in other countries too. Maggie let ours go to the wall whilst other countries gave subsidies until the recession passed.

Given normal longevity, Blair will outlive me. I wonder how many people will say he has to be respected. I am listening to Today on Radio 4, and it was said that when asked what she had bequeathed to Britain, she replied 'Tony Blair'. What a legacy.
It is true that many manufacturing industries were inefficient and still using machinery from the first days of the industrial revolution. Surely, if the people with the funds had been willing to invest, it would not have been impossible to bring them up to date. Similarly, it should have been possible to regulate the unions without smashing them, with the 'collateral' damage to whole communities. I have always thought the running down of industries which gave employment to the traditional working classes was ideological rather than pragmatic. In times of high unemployment and job uncertainty, workers are far more likely to accept worsening conditions and pay. More profits for the few. Thatcher seemed to think that the financial service industry would provide employment for all - what a jok

Privatisation lined the pockets of the few and led to the splintering of the railways, for example, with disastrous results for safety. If management was poor, it should have been replaced. We needed greater regulation, not less. Few individuals or companies have been prosecuted for manslaughter when the drive for greatest maximum profits for shareholders has led to neglect of safety rules.

No, I am not blaming Thatcher for these failings, but I am blaming Thatcherism and the belief that if businesses were making enough profit it would 'trickle down' to the people actually doing the work. It didn't.

Am I cynical - of course I am. I have eyes to see and ears to hear. One look at Blair and his millions is all I need. Mark Thatcher became a millionaire without any discernible talent or intelligence because of his mother's contacts with Saudi Arabia and the corrupt defence industry.
His efforts to make money in Africa were just risible if not criminal.

This post is disjointed because I am so angry, listening to people lauding this woman and excusing all the wrong she did on the grounds that she was strong or a woman. I can think of a lot of other strong leaders in the world and I don't think any of us would claim to respect most of them.
(If anybody tells me to calm down or chill out they will get some unparliamentary language from me!)

gillybob agreeing on your comments re students,don't they know when she was in power they did not have the fee's that they have to pay to-day and the disgraceful behaviour of people who the next generation of our Country leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

Surely the gross failings of the governments that followed her do not excuse the wrongs she did?

Here are some details of the shameful career of the son she idolised, which must bring her judgement into doubt. It seems he was, in fact, a criminal and a usurer. She insisted that her husband be given an hereditary honour so he could be Sir Mark Thatcher. I wonder how she squared her 'strong moral principles' with his antics.

fhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3597196.stm

Flickety

You say She was a conviction politician with a clear set of principles which she stood by and defended.

That is never automatically a good thing to do. A person should judge their principles against moral standards and the general good; not follow them blindly at whatever cost to others.

It would be quite possible to use that phrase about Hitler and a number of other dictators etc.
NB. Before anyone gets their guns out I am not making any direct comparisons between the actions of these two, but the principles are the same.
That "sticking to principles attitude" is what led to burning protestants or catholics at the stake, depending on which side you were on.

What led to Thatcher's downfall was her inability to listen to the views of her cabinet and she ignored advice from many quarters. That shows arrogance a lack of connection with others.

I cannot accept that sticking to principles whatever is always a good thing.

You say about Cameron listening to opinion polls It is important because it is the only way public opinion can get any influence over what government does.
I am not saying the goverment should always be swayed by the public and other opinion but they need to listen and examine their policies accordingly. When the public feel they are persistantly not listened to is when rioting occurs. As has happened over the centuries.

… and of course in Thatcher's own time because of the poll tax.

Blimey! Was no one actually bringing their kids up during Maggie's reign?

I could tell you more about what went on on Blue Peter than I could about any of this stuff!