See how Maggie goes….
The question of Margaret Thatcher’s funeral has surfaced from nowhere, offering, if nothing else, a brief opportunity (less common these days) for stark polarisation between commentators. It emerges, as it happens, that this story may be a wild goose (released by the MoS?), but while political comment in the Shag Rags (Sun, Star, Screws) has been eclipsed by issues like which BB inmate is going to bonk which, it’s heartening to see that at least one of our national newspapers has developed into an organ of broad views.
The Guardian, whose readers’ letters were overwhelmingly hostile to the prospect of a State funeral for the old thing, had the bollocks to field a piece by Simon Jenkins headlined:
This hate figure doesn’t merit a state funeral. All she did was rescue Britain.
Margaret Thatcher was a revolutionary leader who improved people’s lives. The left’s continued fury will serve to cheer her
Jenkins goes on to point out…
In the Statesman the playwright Ed Waugh denounced Thatcher’s “unprecedented attack on the living standards and democratic rights of working people”. What, he asked, of the “selfless miners … and heroic Liverpool councillors”? A state funeral (surely of no concern to the left) would be “an unforgivable betrayal of Labour voters”.
The same psalmody was chanted in unison by Guardianistas entombed in some prison of the 1980s mind. The lady was “loathed and despised by a large proportion of UK citizens”. Who could forget “savage cuts to the public sector”, not to mention “loads of money” and “no such thing as society”? The writers suggested variously that the funeral go to the lowest bidder, take place in Port Stanley, or be attended by “ex-miners, just to make sure she has gone”.
I’m not so certain that Thatcher rescued Britain, at least not in toto. Union Barons whose power was out of proportion to their function in protecting workers’ rights had to be confronted, and her hide was thick enough to take them on. Abandoning support for value-adding activities like the motor-cycle industry and some areas of ship-building was less helpful.
Added to which, the gilt on her political career was somewhat tarnished by being in power for too long, and suffering from the distortion in sense of self-worth that this inevitably brings (look at Robert Mugabe). It was hard not to laugh at “We are a grandmother.”
However, this is beside the point, which is that the Guardian, spawned in the traditions of the Left, shows true maturity in the balance of its commentators, from Polly Toynbee and Charlie “I hate all Tories” Brooker, to the moderate Jenkins, and the less moderate Max Hastings.
Popularity: 1% [?]
Hello Peter
Listening to you at the Leveson Inquiry today, I thought you might be interested to have a look at ...
@Fleur,
I suspect he still has a job because he knows where the bodies are buried. 
Not much to write home about Neville? 
hi peter,great website. i bought your book news of the world and managed to get hold of CAMERA ASSASSIN 2 ...
they finally caught the little toad if he can lie at a small tribunal he certainly can rely on ...
Comment by Carole Reeves on 26 July 2008:
As a dyed in the wool Guardianista, I did not agree with Simon Jenkins’ article. Probably the main reason for not giving the old girl a state funeral is that she was, and still is, a very divisive figure. Far from rescuing us, a great deal of what she did was extremely harmful to the fabric of our society and the effects continue down to this day. In fact a lot of the harm she caused was enthusiastically continued by Tony Blair and New Labour. The only thing I’ll grant her is that she righted the balance between government and trade unions.
What of the harm?
* Selling council houses: a quick fix; giving away the country’s assets at a knockdown price. Now we desperately need houses at a decent, affordable rent and are planning to blanket the country with new towns. I rest my case. Continued by TB and NL.
* Letting industry go to the wall: this probably wasn’t noticed in London and broad swathes of the south, but in the north it was devastating. We had a terrible 15 years of unemployment and poverty, as traditional heavy industry collapsed, including such highlights as the miners’ strike, where we had to provide clothing and food parcels for desperate families for a year and we saw a huge police presence in the mining villages.
* Connected to the above: letting the poor rot. I am sure that the root causes of this and a prime cause of the creation of large groups of people without employment or hope lie in the depredations of the Thatcher years and is the result of a ‘there is no such thing as society’ attitude. Here NL has made an effort to right the many years of neglect by Thatcher and co. She is a direct creator of the yawning gulf between the haves and havenots.
* Greed: sanctified by MT. We’re still plagued by it now, and NL tiptoes round the enormous City bonuses and pathetic amount of tax paid by the rich. Have they considered how demoralizing it is to people who don’t avoid paying their tax to have to watch this going on?
* Demonization of public servants: every civilized country needs good public servants. The public services need support and the means to do their job. MT spent quite a lot of time slagging off teachers and NL signalled their intention to follow suit by keeping on the adulterous Chris Woodhead (last seen embroiled in disputes over the chain of private schools he owns).
Comment by Peter on 28 July 2008:
OK, but would you concede the main point of this post, that the Guardian, in having the confidence to thump a variety of tubs, provides a genuine forum for a diversity of views, and that’s good thing?
Comment by Carole Reeves on 30 July 2008:
Those deadly words, Peter: I agree. The Guardian is by miles the best national daily around and they do give space to people who aren’t on the same wavelength as their readers, viz. Simon Jenkins and Max Hastings. The Daily Mail is, I think, written and edited by people from Mars.
Comment by Peter on 31 July 2008:
As I blogged a few days ago, it was drawn to my attention that the Mail, most shamefully, had decided to show its opposition to anything that does not concur with the Thoughts of Chairman Dacre by attempting to slur viciously a hard-working judge for defending individuals’ rights to a private life, as he has done cosistently, in line with Article 8 of the HRA. Thus I was obliged to read the Mail to assess the quality of their venom. Normally I wouldn’t wipe my arse with it.