Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

the tories are producing a "political stunt" .... fred - that is a total and utter distortion of the truth and well you know it! .... the funeral arrangements were put in place by the last labour administration

merely as as aside about Diana - she may not have been the most intellectual lightbulb, but she certainly learnt to use her charm to its best effect and did a lot of work with a great many valuable charities ...... that said, the ultimate hysteria following her death assuredly got ridiculously out of hand

"chris carson my daughter was in the falkland war and was in port stanley
she does not say much about it as she sign to serve the queen and country
she was also in barain . did you fight for your country"

tanker - how old was your daughter in 1982?

Cynic,

Was that in hopeful expectation, or planning a hit squad.

MT's funeral arrangements? ..... don't remember how or exactly why they were put in place or what triggered the debate about them at the time ...... in honesty, this (rather/very silly) debate on here has dragged on long enough with the usual extraneous crap being spouted from several sources

Yes Dad!

We will all be quiet!

Thank Heavens for that.

But I am not making a sound!

;-)

Princess Di was the result of a highly privileged upbringing and achieved nothing. I can think of plenty derogatory adjectives to apply to her but I won't post them. She would have been fine as the wife of someone from a similar background and not much else. The public's opinion is not important. She caught a certain mood at the time and not much more. I have never seen the the appeal that she had. Being popular with the public is pretty meaningless. The public never did have any sense or good taste. Her only value and legacy has been the large number of jokes about her.

'The public never did have any sense or good taste.' Strange statement.
2517

If the government listened to public opinion all the time we we would be in a mess. When you get public opinion about any topic you get an average. The average is almost always wrong. If I put one hand in the oven and one in the freezer then on average I am comfortable. Public opinion would mean that we would have capital punishment. When we reflect MPs we are choosing people who we think will do the right thing in many situations.

Being popular with the public meant there was no debate about who paid for her funeral arrangements Haystack.

Why we should foot the bill for MT is beyond me.

Her renogociation of the EU rebate against the other leaders has netted us £79 billion so far. That's reason enough. By the way Blair unnecessarily gave back a large slice of that rebate.

Is this the same public opinion that have voted MT as the best PM, and if so how does that square with your statement?
2517

From 2009

Tony Blair’s decision to cut a large part of the European Union rebate has cost the economy £9.3billion, new figures show.

The former prime minister was criticised for failing to win concessions when he decided to axe the UK’s Brussels rebate four years ago.

Now figures calculated by House of Commons researchers show that Britain will have lost out on €10.5billion (£9.3billion) by not receiving the full rebate between 2007 and 2013, calculated at 2004 prices.

As had been said earlier, the form of Mrs T funeral was decided by the last Labour government. Take your complaints to Brown's chums: Balls and Miliband.

Whether you like or loath Mrs T will depend in part on whether you are old enough to have experienced the awful 1970s. If you take 1973 as a base, which was when the trouble with militant unions was at its height and just before the three day week in 1974. That is 40 years ago. Anyone who was at least say 15 then and experienced all the union trouble and the battle to decide who runs the country, unions or government, would be at least 55 now and most would be 60 plus now. It would be interesting to see the poll figures from people with an informed opinion. The bulk of trouble and activism is, as usual, from people far too young to have any idea of what really went on.

Scargill had seen how it had been possible to bring down the weak Heath government by causing strikes. Thatcher knew she was going to get more of the same. She built up coal stocks and was ready for Scargill. Right on cue, Scargill called a strike with no vote allowed for his union members. Scargill was so sure of victory that he called the strike in summer when coal usage is very low. Some mineworkers wanted to keep working and flying pickets bullied them into giving up. There was a smaller more militant group within the union that instigated violence, culminating in the dropping of a concrete block on someone from a bridge, killing him. Union members asked regularly for a vote during the strick, but Scargill refused every time as he knew the members had wanted to settle the strike months earlier.

Don't forget that the minors' union was getting funds from the Soviet government at the time.

Haystack, I take it that reply was for Dil (post 23731). I find it a strange comment to make (post 23728) in light of the fact that you are taking the same public opinion to support your view (and mine also) of MT being the best PM.
I happen to believe that she came along at the right time for the country, notwithstanding there are a good many people with (perhaps rightly in their case) a huge sense of injustice and unfairness, just as there is now with the coalition and most certainly during Labour's wasteful years. Governments whatever their persuasion will not please everyone.
2517

Tony Blair said recently, "when you decide, you divide".

When Mrs T came along the country was already divided. The sides were the unions and the majority of the country who hated the unions.

Hays,

I think you are becoming more and more deluded. The country was more divided after the Maggie regime than any period over the last 40 years, that is up until this present government came into power.

Have a look how Maggie Thatcher paid for her triumphs,

The flogging off, of the “Family Silver”. (Stated by one of a previous Tory prime minister.)

The purloining of, the revenues of North Sea oil and Gas.

The flogging off, of local housing and public services.
(With the euphemisms, such as contracting out.)

Smashing up heavy industries and leaving the beginning of a false, weak and eventually failing economy.

Mass unemployment and break up of communities.

She came into power with the lucky break of North Sea and Nationalise Industries to plunder, and flogged to her mates at knock down prices and to support tax cuts to the same, who often spirited the proceeds abroad.

(Other countries used the income to restore their flagging industries.)

Again there was obvious need to change Strike Laws and Union regulations etc., (See previous posts), but more attempts improve relationships, between Management, Owners and Workers.

But, unfortunately both sides were as arrogant as each other. This type of arrogance and disregard of the “whole” of society is still being demonstrated by and you, along with Cameron and his cronies still seem to exhibit the same type of indifference and arrogance.

There was a need for pruning "heavy industry and mining etc." as they many of their parts were uneconomic, inefficient and in decline. However, this should not have been done by slashing and burning, in the manner relished by those who appear as primitive and of the same ilk as you.

After the necessary "siege" economy of the late forties, the processes of reforming and “recapitalising” of heavy industries and similar, should have been started earlier but carried out. There was “daft” resistance by some of the unions and their leadership, but responsible government might have got over these problems. They were not insurmountable, and many in the unions were open to reason.

Any government with foresight could have produced long term policies and been able to introduce the policies more slowly, allowing the necessary time for adaption, but showing respect for the various communities.

Thatcher was another political chancer, who ducked many of her responsibilities while in office, and instead of improving society squandered the country’s legacy, for short term political or personal advantage.

History may be a far harsher critic of her, than many think.
=====================

For me, and many others, Thatcher and her comrades appeared to show little respect for others and many do not think she deserves their respect.

The family, adherents, lackeys and friends could mourn and pay their respects to her in private, at their own expenses, not those of the general public.

Blair privatised more public services than Mrs T. She sold of a number of industries such as Gas, BT etc She wanted to roll back the tide of state control and nationalisation. Don't forget that Blair removed clause 4 from the Labour party constitution which specified that there was to be public ownership of industry.Labour MPs voted for it.