Hi

I don't agree with this argument. I don't think the rest of the world gives two hoots, to be honest.

The bottom line for me is that no other PM has had this kind of funeral (barring you-know-who, but that was his wartime efforts). Thatcher didn't do anything so special that she deserved this more than all the other ex-PM's who die. The most exceptional thing she did was force the country in a certain direction, which made her 'marmite' As such, I think it was especially wrong to afford her that funeral.

I'd like to think that PoM's articulate and well-researched posts should at least make one think about one's own position and views. I really struggle with people who don't seem to be willing to at least contemplate that their own world view isn't always right.

I know I change my mind all the time!

No no Martin I didn't say it "wasn't worth trying to battle with PoM". It's just a foregone conclusion that any of his arguments would trump mine. And long may they continue - these pages would be "threadbare" if it were not for PoM.

I haven't listened to anything on LBC this morning (bringing it back on topic!) - I don't think I can take much more of ID.

Well let us agree to disagree. Like marmite Margaret Thatcher attracted both friend and foe. There is nothing either can say to the other to make them change their mind. I just think she had more balls than any other member of parliament both then and now. The Conservative establishment hated the petit bourgeois housewife they considered her to be and for that reason alone I cheered her on. Her strong suit was being in possession of all the facts.
If Blair had done that we would never have gone to war in Iraq

Will you allow me just one more go?

I don't personally think she was in possession of all the facts. Bernard Ingham famously kept her away from the newspapers, and like all politicians, she was just as reliant on what she was told, I should think, as anyone else. Actually, in that sense, I do have some sympathy with our politicians, who are often 'stufffed' by their Sir Humphreys, I think.

I also think she was genuinely slightly mad by the end of it.

But I wonder if I couldn't persuade that you ANY massively divisive figure shouldn't have a public funeral in the way she did? It's a boon for the fans, but it's surely it's a lot to ask of those who don't like such a person, isn't it? Couple this with the blatant hypocrisy of those who demand respect, but don't give it when someone they don't like dies... and I think it's all wrong.
Last edited by makeba72 : 26-04-2013 at 15:55

You are not telling me that newspapers have all the facts are you!!!
Given what a diverse bunch we have in this country Bernard Ingham was absolutely right to do as he did.
But when it came to the Falklands she did listen to all the right people - those in the military rather than those in the Civil Service.
And I think it is well known she boned up on all the facts she could get her hands on before going into meetings or PMQs.

How many PMs could have had the strength of character to give her speech at the Conservative party conference only hours after having her hotel bombed and knowing friends had died and been injured?
Surely you can credit her with bravery if nothing else?

And wouldn't you have gone mad dealing with that lot??
It is also possible that very early signs of dementia were to blame for some of her behaviour towards the end so I prefer to tread softly there.

And no you can't persuade me about the funeral!!
Nobody was forced to watch it. Or to attend it. As far as I know!!
If Blair should have the same I promise I will not say a word!!

I wonder what Dale is going to bore us with this afternoon.......
keeping it on topic!!

Ah well, it was worth a go

Just for the record, I only threw in the newspapers thing as an example of her being removed from certain information, not saying that papers are the font of all knowledge.

And no, I haven't said she didn't show strength of character, even bravery. But much depends on whether you think the character itself was worth being strong about - personally, I think it was a bad character, so that colours my views, of course. I'm not sure what to make of the Brighton bomb story, of which I was reminded on the K&D show. Apparently, she asked for M&S to open early so people could get new clothes Some would see this as bravery, but I think there's another argument that it could be seen as insensitivity.

But I applaud consistency, and if you wouldn't complain about Blair getting it, fair enough. I still would, though!

Such a struggle listening to ID - like Andy Pandy on steroids
Apparently those who agree with him are "the voice of reason"
I actually heard this at 16.54
silly bugger.........

Amazing how often the voice of reason is the voice of agreement!

I'm not as impresed with Mr D in the new slot. I think he's changed his style for the worse to fill the new time. A real shame.

Oh - the M&S thing. I was really saying that going on with the conference could be seen as insensitive, depening on your viewpoint. I'm not sure what I make of that, actually. These days, we'd think it was more respectful to stop and remember, I feel.

One final post!!
ID has apparently been accused of bullying this afternoon but strongly denies that he has ever bullied anybody!!
And I'm the Queen of Sheba

Yes on the M&S point you are probably right.
Post-Diana the country appears to have lost its stiff upper lip and weeps at the drop of a hat.
Particularly when the TV cameras are there............
The only people who benefit from this are the florists.
If people are going to leave flowers why don't they take these ghastly cellophane covers off first.
Now that is a waste of money.

But on a serious point MT thought that to cancel the conference would have been to give in to the IRA and I think she was right.
Which is not exactly much of a surprise is it!

I'm going to try and tie my answer together on these two points... see if I manage it!

I think that both of these are about perceptions and what's in the eye of the beholder. If someone feels bullied, then I generally think the appropriate response is one of sensitivity, asking why, digging deeper, apologising perhaps. I don't generally think it's appropriate to automatically just go straight on the defensive and accuse the other party of being too thin-skinned, or whatever.

Same for Mrs T. I suspect you're right in how she saw things. But I would have preferred her if she'd been more capable of seeing things from other points of view. How did the grieving & the shell-shocked feel about just ploughing on? There's no right answer here

I wonder if KL and DM will be discussing this unsavoury character on their show on Saturday.
I must say he does have a way with words.
Almost as good as our PoM but not quite!!
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013...?utm_hp_ref=uk
And this was a man who had his own show on TalkSport!!
Come on LBC you're slipping..........

Mellor using a fairly common LBC tactic:
take a national story (IDS, availability for work, and job availability),
relates experience of what presenter sees in London
and extrapolates on that experience and projects it on to the whole of the country

London =/= England, let alone Britain.

A caller now on talking about how Poles always find work. Weirdly, I know around a dozen now in my town who can't find work at all. Also, why do charities like Barka exist in London &c., if all Eastern Europeans find work in this country? Funny how LBC rarely talk about the 'hot bed' phenomenon &c., and the other side of Polish employment.

Some - and, by that, I do mean some, not all - of my politics overlap with Galloway's, but I've never warmed to him as a presenter at all. I really didn't like him on TalkSport (never had the opportunity to listen to him on LBC). Although, I must admit, he went up in my estimation due to his taking on the Senate in Washington but that's mainly due to my feelings about America than Galloway.

Forgive my ignorance, but what is the hot bed phenomenon?

I agree with the general thrust of this, but it's not just down to the 'Princess of Hearts'.

To tie this in with my last post, I think the Americanisation of popular culture has a lot to do with this too: 'the journey' with always end with an outpouring of emotion on early evening TV; the Californian pop-psychology that seems to encourage 'touchy-feely' behaviour and a weird saccharine insincerity; and so on.

As well as florists, how about the rise (and fall) in the greeting card industry and the, again, often Americanisation of 'special days'.

Imagine 'hot desking' within an office, where people share a desk because they're not working at it at the same time (part-time workers and so on). It's a similar thing with Eastern Europeans &c, when sharing houses/flats en masse. Working shifts &c., means that more people can share beds, furnishings, cooking facilities &c., due to a kind of rotation system.

A similar kind of system is used on submarines and used to be used in mining and mill communities in this country, due to the pattern of shift-work (I know this to be true within my own family history).

Basically, it allows a lot more people to share often already crowded dwellings reducing renting costs &c. considerably. This props-up the viability of many Eastern European's work lives: often short-term but very intense with a lot of money saved and sent back home. It was something that also happened with many British workers in the early 80s as documented by 'comedy' Auf Wiedersehen, Pet (where the workers lived and slept in huts, rather than flats).

We never hear of this side of Eastern European employment, just that they're all able to find work (not true), are willing and able to work for not a lot of money. Well, this is how many of the do it. Instead, it's just about the incessant race to the bottom in the name of 'competition' and Cameron's obsession with the 'global race'. A global race which would be more accurately portrayed as rich greyhound owners across the world forcing their dogs to race for longer races on less food and even shittier kennels as their stakes and winnings become larger and larger.

So presumably the 'worker' has the use of another property that is owned or rented? Otherwise where would the partner stay and what would happen on days off?

The point he was making was that East Europeans take certain jobs en masse .Whether its 100% or 90% is neither here or there..You are inevitable going to get a few who do bugger all whether by choice or not.

Days off? LOL. Historically, there's little concept of 'days off' until unions made headroads. The days off that existed tended to be community events where everyone was involved - whether it was church, village fete-type stuff.

From what I know from my submariner cousins, there's little 'down-time' and what there is tends to spend in the mess.

As for Poles, I'm under the impression that the option is to stay in a very cramped flat with half a dozen other people or go out. Again, this is what I hear from Poles.

And they are able to do so because of what I've pointed out above: their cost of living is often much cheaper, so they can often undercut wages of locals, which makes them more appealing to certain employers.

I was just wondering where the partner would be living, presuming that they would not wish to stay with the person that they are 'hot bedding' with.

I'm talking about single people, who, as far as I'm aware, make-up the bulk of people coming from Eastern Europe to England.

PoM has already explained hot bedding but it is particularly prevalent amongst the East European farmworkers scattered throughout England and of course in a place like Boston in Lincolnshire it has probably reached epidemic levels.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/de...an-immigration

The practice even reached the pages of a thriller I read last last year the name of which escapes me.
It wasn't particularly good anyway.

But it did make a nonsense of KL's assertion this morning that a 2-bedroomed flat in the London area would cost almost but not quite the equivalent of a Polish Worker's wages. I would think a 2-bedroomed flat would be home to at least eight or ten of those workers.

They don't care where they go Martin if their bed is being slept in - they are just grateful to have a bed at all.
There are no 'partners' involved - just fellow workers.

Galloway has two saving graces for me - the first was as you said when he confronted the Senate in Washington and wiped the smiles from the smug Senators who had summoned him to appear before them. I cheered him for that. My God a limey making a mockery of us. Unforgivable!
Actually it wasn't - it was hilarious.

His second saving grace is that he does have a mastery of the English language which can deflate the most pompous of his fellow MPs.
Can you see Milliband's face when he reads that he is "an unprincipled coward with the backbone of an amoeba".
Other than that there is something of the night about Mr Galloway.

As for America there are two things that I cannot forgive them for - their extensive use of unmanned drones and their extradition treaty which takes British citizens from this country to American and there to administer their own form of justice....
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013...&utm_hp_ref=uk