Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JPKC)
    I literally cannot believe that I'm having this argument with two people who claim to be left-wing.

    Rsplaya - are you incapable of empaphising with people who were affected by the Thatcher government? Are you incapable of looking over the facts and reaching a rational conclusion, proportionate to the evidence available, about the Thatcher government? Are you incapable of supporting your claim that all of my argument is 'propaganda' with any counter-arguments of your own? If the answer is yes, I look forward to your response. If the answer is no, I hope that you leave the Green Party and **** off to the Tories. Being left-wing means being compassionate and scientific in our attitudes to policy and the past, and above all else, other people.
    I am with the Green Party not the Socialist or the Communist party. The problem is I can't look over the facts because so many people distort them and turn them into propaganda, I wouldn't know where to look for an unbiased account of the time. All I know is Thatcher closed the coal mines which in a weird sort of way is what the Green Party supports, lower carbon emissions.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    No from me! I'm not going to pass what is essentially a rant at Thatcher. I actually agree with some sort of state funeral as she was one of the biggest figures in modern British history, although I really don't know how it is costing this much! I also agree that the BBC should not have censored itself on the anti-thatcher song.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rsplaya)
    No like i said in my first post I disagree with having a state funeral and the censorship from the BBC. To celebrate a person's death who represented our country as effective head of state (I don't count those dastardly royals) is disrespectful. Can you name a single prime minister or individual that didn't negatively affect somebody in some way? You shouldn't celebrate the deaths of anybody including your enemies, why are you so full of hate?
    Slightly hypocritical about the royals but meh.
    Thats not the point, the point was she was the most controversial effective head of state probably ever. I'm asking why we're holding a state funded funeral for somebody who divided opinion so much. I'd rather have a service for somebody not so divise and when we can actually afford one.
    I'm not full hate, just asking what makes her different from every tom, **** and harry who pay for their own funerals.

    I'll repost my death etiquette article http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...eath-etiquette
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nixonsjellybeans)
    Slightly hypocritical about the royals but meh.
    Thats not the point, the point was she was the most controversial effective head of state probably ever. I'm asking why we're holding a state funded funeral for somebody who divided opinion so much. I'd rather have a service for somebody not so divise and when we can actually afford one.
    I'm not full hate, just asking what makes her different from every tom, **** and harry who pay for their own funerals.

    I'll repost my death etiquette article http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...eath-etiquette
    I will reiterate i agree that there should not be a state funeral. What is wrong with being divisive anyway? There have been many great people who were all divisive and plenty of bad people that were divisive, it has no relevance to who pays for the funeral. If you aren't a divisive person then it probably means you didn't do anything.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JPKC)
    Krack - the entire basis of left-wing politics is that greater democracy is a good thing. When the people control public services, public services are run in the interests of the people - regardless of whether they are monopolies or not. When a monopoly is controlled by a private corporation, a private tyranny, its only interest is in exploiting the maximum amount of profit from the people reliant on its services. That is the difference between a nationalised monopoly and a private one. Inefficiency is found in both the public and private spheres. Thatcher created private monopolies in energy, telecoms, and water; the water system in the UK remains a monopolised, whilst the energy system is subject to the same problems due to the cartel agreement between the largest firms. Energy and water costs have risen dramatically above inflation over the last three decades. Telecoms would remain the same had the monopoly not been broken by the advancement of technology.
    I am a Blairite not a Socialist so forgive me for not agreeing with you 100%!

    From what I understand under state control the inefficiency of all the industries you mentioned were worse than they are currently in the private sector. Like many Blairites I consider the free market a tool for us to achieve our aims in Socialism. As for the monopoly in energy and water, I don't see a monopoly in energy at all and as for the cartel, it isn't so much of a cartel when wholesale prices are rising year on year due to resources becoming scarce and thus consumer prices have to also rise year on year, I can't speak for water as I live in London and only know of Thames Water although I do believe that water like other resources is becoming increasingly scarce and that in itself is pushing prices up.

    We need to research better alternatives quickly in order to not only be better for the environment but to bring down prices before it is too late and R&D happens after oil and gas have run out for example which means consumers will be paying more to fund R&D into an industry that could of done it years previously and made it cost effective by now.

    At the end of the day I am not as far left as you and I do not agree with you in this instance.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    May I remind everyone that it's not a state funeral. It's a ceremonial funeral with military honours.

    Besides, the amount of public money spent is more like £4 million, most of it has been paid for by the Thatcher family/estate.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Totally against.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Krack)
    I am a Blairite
    stopped reading right there.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SciFiRory)
    stopped reading right there.
    Congratulations on showing how petty you are.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Krack)
    Congratulations on showing how petty you are.
    :yawn:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SciFiRory)
    :yawn:
    Clearly you are someone to avoid if this is how you are going to behave.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JPKC)
    Is there anything about my post that you specifically disagree with?
    Yes.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rsplaya)
    I will reiterate i agree that there should not be a state funeral. What is wrong with being divisive anyway? There have been many great people who were all divisive and plenty of bad people that were divisive, it has no relevance to who pays for the funeral. If you aren't a divisive person then it probably means you didn't do anything.
    It has all the relevance- why would you shell out for somebody half the nation doesn't like whilst the rest view her as a hero? Thats just crazy logic just because you didn't annoy half a nation does not make you insignificant.
    By that rule you would refuse Churchill a state funded funeral if it had been him who died. I'd be happier to pay for somebody such as Churchill's funeral who most people can agree deserved it. Attlee was less divisive and he certainly did things.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CLS94)
    This isn't intended as a general rant about Thatcher. I took the decision to highlight the issues in question as they illustrated the divisiveness of her politics. A State funeral, funded by everyone, is only appropriate in cases where the person in question has undertaken actions that have almost unquestionably resulted in a better quality of life for British citizens. Cases in point would be Winston Churchill, for his leadership in the Second World War, and Clement Atlee, who was crucial in the revolutionary welfare state that ensures decency and health for everyone regardless of circumstance. A Prime Minister like Thatcher who, on the contrary, actively fought against equal rights for LGBT people, representing up to 10% of the population, and attacked hundreds of communities which to this day are unanimous in their opposition to Thatcherism and the devastating effects it's had on them. There is no reason for this funeral or the censorship, and forcing people who feel they have suffered so heavily under Thatcher to fund it is deeply insulting.
    And yet Churchill did plenty of wrong, including some of his handling of India and Ireland that led to deaths and awful things.

    And you could easily argue that Attlee's policies of nationalising industry led to the crises we saw in the 70's and 80's, not to mention his idealistic naivity led to a whole host of post-war problems.

    If you want to oppose someone, it's very easy to find things they did wrong and ignore all they did right.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nixonsjellybeans)
    It has all the relevance- why would you shell out for somebody half the nation doesn't like whilst the rest view her as a hero? Thats just crazy logic just because you didn't annoy half a nation does not make you insignificant.
    By that rule you would refuse Churchill a state funded funeral if it had been him who died. I'd be happier to pay for somebody such as Churchill's funeral who most people can agree deserved it. Attlee was less divisive and he certainly did things.
    No nobody deserves a state funeral. The fact that you aren't attacking state funerals but Thatcher herself just proves to me that you just have a chip on your shoulder over her government's policies. If you don't like them well vote against them but you have no authority to judge who deserves a state funeral. Nobody has that authority that is why I say the best answer is a one size fits all approach.
    Offline

    18
    No. The creator of this motion is clearly a bigot.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nebelbon)
    No. The creator of this motion is clearly a bigot.
    Thank you.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    And yet Churchill did plenty of wrong, including some of his handling of India and Ireland that led to deaths and awful things.

    And you could easily argue that Attlee's policies of nationalising industry led to the crises we saw in the 70's and 80's, not to mention his idealistic naivity led to a whole host of post-war problems.

    If you want to oppose someone, it's very easy to find things they did wrong and ignore all they did right.
    Oh I do agree, I'm an Irish Socialist and have many, many criticisms of Churchill, but it's beside the point. Churchill, despite his faults (let us remember we all have them) brought the nation together. He gave Britain a national spirit and a unity that was crucial to the war effort. And that achievement in itself eclipses anything Thatcher did regardless of your politics: he helped defeat fascism, and keep Britain's sovereignty. Thatcher was different. Even if you loved her policies, and thought them for the best, you would have to admit they were polarising. Unlike Churchill, there are huge, huge numbers of people who didn't buy into the spirit she set out, people who absolutely loathe her. A state funeral is for national reminiscence: not just for those in the Tory party.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rsplaya)
    No nobody deserves a state funeral. The fact that you aren't attacking state funerals but Thatcher herself just proves to me that you just have a chip on your shoulder over her government's policies. If you don't like them well vote against them but you have no authority to judge who deserves a state funeral. Nobody has that authority that is why I say the best answer is a one size fits all approach.
    I agree nobody does- In an ideal world we can all have state funerals and remember each other proudly but it can't happen.
    You clearly don't understand what i'm getting at. I don't like state funded funerals but if we must have one by popular demand then at least make it somebody who is worth it to a solid majority e.g. Churchill.
    I'll leave it here as this is going nowhere...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CLS94)
    He helped defeat fascism.
    Nazism, Churchill helped defeat Nazism. Fascism was still very much alive after the war and it is still alive today.
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 23, 2013
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.