MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falklands’ debates contribution to Baroness Thatcher’s funeral costs
The UK public opinion controversy over the cost of Baroness Thatcher’s funeral has reached the Falkland Islands where a member of the public proposed a ‘six figure’ contribution towards the event from the local government. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesIt's not the amount of money that matters, it's the thought behind the donation that matters. The MLA's would do well to remember that!
Apr 24th, 2013 - 05:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0How disappointing.
Apr 24th, 2013 - 06:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0The people who complained about the money used for the funeral, you will find are the people in general that pay the least in. Most of the anti-establishment students and people who have made a life of living on benefits.
Apr 24th, 2013 - 08:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0I have never claimed a benefit in my adult life and I am more than happy with the cost of the funeral when measured with what the great lady did for us. Maybe the Falkland Islands could donate an undisclosed figure of money, that way avoiding most of the problems they feel they will get themselves into.
Too late, Ed. Some of us have already noticed.
Apr 24th, 2013 - 08:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0#3 I think people have raised valid concerns about the excessive cost of the funeral. I fully support Thatchers stance on the Falklands and several other issues but I can not remain quiet about the destruction she wracked on vast swathes of the UK . I admit, and this is coming from a socialist, the unions had too much power and needed to be brought under control. Further, I acknowledge our mining industry was inefficient (mostly due to the fact that most of the easy coal had been exploited) and expensive compared to cheap foreign imports (though this has serious harmed our energy security). However by rapidly dismantling the industry without any effort whatsoever to provide alternative employment she destroyed the lives of a substantial portion of that generation. Combined with her zeal for privatisation and the lack of any progress towards a more liberal society (see Section 28). In my view the only good thing she really did was defend the rights of a group of people who wanted to remain British in the face of an nasty expansionist regime - and let me be clear, every one of her actions in the war were justified. However, this was a relatively easy task for her sitting safe in the UK, but not so much for those who fought.
Apr 24th, 2013 - 08:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0I hope you can appreciate that there are a great many people in the UK who not only disliked MT but positively hated her for the effect she on this country.
FYI I'm a *young* (born in the 80s) higher-rate tax payer who has never claimed benefits (other than child benefit) AND I am strongly against the cost of Maggie's funeral.
A small point BUT thatcher did not save the Falklands from Argentina - the British public did.
Apr 24th, 2013 - 09:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0They were our armed forces, not hers.
As a 1980's born socialist you might not know that Labour closed down far more pits than Maggie Thatcher and then during 13 years socialist mis-rule did nothing to reopen a single one. They did however introduce a whole load of green taxes which was the final nail in the coal industry coffin.
Apr 24th, 2013 - 09:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Whatever amount was offered there would always be someone who would point out that it bore no comparison to money already spent on the defence of the Islands. We could well turn out to be the whipping boys for current British public frustrations.”
Apr 24th, 2013 - 09:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0Feck off. We don't want or need your fecking money.
@1 I agree. It is the thought that counts.
Apr 24th, 2013 - 10:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0@3 An important thought for this debate is that the figure of £10 million has been mentioned. However, those who know say that the actual amount is nowhere near that sum. Let's suppose that the Falkland Islands donated 50p for every member of the population. Wouldn't that be a six-figure sum? Would it break the Islander “bank”? Doesn't the Islanders' per capita GDP (PPP) stand at US$55,400? Isn't that £36,564. And who would miss 50p?
@5 Try some research. It has already been stated that the £10 million cost is nowhere near the actual amount. Try thinking. Does that £10 million include the salaries of all the police and military personnel? Wouldn't they have been paid anyway? Think of other things that journalists like to include in “the cost” for shock value.
@6 Who made the decision to send the Task Force to the Falkland Islands? No decision, no Task Force. But to clarify, the British public did little or nothing. It cheered the Task Force away, it glued itself to tv screens, it cheered the Task Force home. What else? The Falkland Islands were saved by the ability and courage of the armed forces. The MEN of the British Army (including the SAS and SBS), the Gurkhas, the Royal Air Force, the Royal Marines and the Royal Navy. And where were the British public? Sitting at home. Give credit where it is due. The British armed forces. The best, the most courageous, the most capable, the most professional in the world. Despite the US Navy assertion that retaking the Islands was impossible, British forces did what they were asked to do. Take nothing from them. Every single one of them.
#7 I'm sorry but you're wrong. Using numbers from the National Coal Mining museum:
Apr 24th, 2013 - 10:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0During Thatcher/Major - Between 1980 and 1995 146 of the 211 coal mines in the UK closed down. In 1980 the industry employed 230,000 people and in 1990 just 15,000 (a decline in jobs of 94%).
During Wilson 2/Callaghan (1974-1979) - 30 of the 241 mines in 1975 closed with a loss of 17,000 jobs (a decline of 7%). During this time production actually increased.
During Heath (1970-1974) - 294 mines to 241, 287k miners to 247k miners (decline of 14%).
During Wilson 1 (1964-1970) - 483 mines to 294, 456k miners to 287k (decline of 43%).
Churchill, Eden, Macmillan, Douglas-Home (1950-1964) - 901 mines to 483, 691k miners to 496k.
So during Conservative governments (1950 - present day) 617 mines closed down with the loss of 415,000 jobs.
During Labour governments 229 mines closed (mostly during Wilson 1) with the loss of 186,000 jobs.
So, I've disproven your claim:
“As a 1980's born socialist you might not know that Labour closed down far more pits than Maggie Thatcher”
As for “and then during 13 years socialist mis-rule did nothing to reopen a single one.” that is *partly* true (nice attempt at a straw man statement). Coal mining was privatised by the Conservatives, thus the government could not have simply opened the old mines. As for “13 years socialist mis-rule” I have to slightly disagree - Post 1997 Labour were responsible for many good changes in this country (more funding for Education and the NHS, improved rights for LGBT etc.).
In terms of the economy, how well a government does can only really be rated against similar economies such as France and Germany. Until the financial crisis our economy grew faster than France and Germany, our unemployment was lower, and our debt was much lower. We suffered badly during the crisis because of our over-reliance on financial services. Have a look at the figures: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13361930
6- She had to make the decision to send them - can assure you though every Task Force Veteran who comes to the Islands is very very welcome - some have returned here everal times now and several now live here.
Apr 24th, 2013 - 12:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 010
Apr 24th, 2013 - 12:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you want to disprove anything you first need to read what I said then apply the right criteria.
“Labour closed down far more pits than Maggie Thatcher”
These are the figures for the sharply declining number of coal mines open each year under those Labour Governments.
1964 545
1965 .. 504
1966 .. 442
1967 .. 406
1968 .. 330
1969 .. 304
1974 .. 250
1975 .. 241
1976 .. 239
1977 .. 231
1978 .. 223
1979 .. 219
These are the figures for the Thatcher years:
1979 .. 219
1980 .. 213
1981 .. 200
1982 .. 191
1983 .. 170
1984 .. 169
1985 .. 133
1986 .. 110
1987 .. 94
1988 .. 86
1989 .. 73
1990 .. 65
So if you do the math
“Labour closed down far more pits than Maggie Thatcher”
is absolutely correct.
Don't get me onto the NHS What a great socialist introduced PFI legacy to leave the NHS!!!
After the mess caused by Wilson and Callaghan - Winter of discontent - IMF bail out - 3 day week, Maggie Thatcher and to be fair, John Major made the Country financially sound. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown pissed it all up against the wall. No great fan of Cameron/Clegg either by the way.
@12
Apr 24th, 2013 - 01:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I was going to say something similar...inthegutter was using a typical leftie slant on his statistics by comparing 33 years of conservative government with 11 years under Labour.
Under the 3 Wilson terms I.e. the 64, 66 and 74 general elections, and a total of 11 years in power 219 pits closed.
Under the 3 Thatcher terms 79, 83, 87 general elections, 11 years in power, 146 pits closed.
Both these allow for the swap in Leader midway through the 3rd term.
so why is Wilson not tarred with a worse brush, why is Wilson not blamed for IMF bail-outs, for winter of discontent, for general strikes, for bodies not buried, for refuse not collected...Britian in 1979 was a bit like Argentina today, massive debts it couldn't pay, and an incompetent government.
Margaret Thatcher changed all that, by 1997 we were sufficiently prosperous for Blair and Brown to piss it up against the wall...
“”“Too late, Ed. Some of us have already noticed.”“”“
Apr 24th, 2013 - 01:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0hahahahahahahahahahahaha
the sock-puppets master has noticed.. and we should all take note that a non-UK, non-existent virtual-only sock-puppet of an Argentine living outside Argentina, has made a comment pretending that they are in the UK and ”affected”.
farqorf sockman
---------
Margaret Thatcher changed all that, by 1997 we were sufficiently prosperous for Blair and Brown to piss it up against the wall...
QFT
#12-13 I admit you're right here in terms of the number of pits closed, we can both use any definition to prove our point (Thatcher vs. Labour, Conservative vs. Labour; different years, etc.). I also admit that under Wilson the economy wasn't great, and suffered a continual structural decline.
Apr 24th, 2013 - 03:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What I object to is the fact that MT was awarded a very expensive state funded funeral where as other politicians, under whose stewardship this country moved in a more progressive liberal direction were not awarded the same accolade. Attlee's government, for example, oversaw the creation of the NHS - one the of the stand out examples of the greatness of UK. Wilson's tenure saw the liberalisation of many laws (homosexuality, the death penalty, censorship etc.) and the massive expansion of education*. In my opinion the only thing of value that MT did for the vast majority of people in this country was make it damn well clear we won't be bullied by a nasty murderous wannabe empire.
* I acknowledge that great deal of people on this forum don't share my views that these were good changes.
@15
Apr 24th, 2013 - 04:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A number of points,
-it is unlikely that the Thatcher funeral cost UK PLC a penny, the “costs” (£10m?) were probably more than recovered by the revenues (lots of foreign diplomats and politicians turning up and spending!!), but irrespective, £10m is peanuts.
- I would agree that Atlee would be deserving of any funeral his family would see fit, frankly I have no idea as to what their wishes were at the time. Wilson, Heath, Major, Blair, Brown, Callaghan...FORGET it
we can argue the relative failures and merits of the Thatcher years ad infinitum, this forum is probably not the best place to do it. However, it is, and remains my view, that when it comes to “great swathes of the country”..they were FAR better of in 1990 than they were in 1979.
TWIMC......
Apr 24th, 2013 - 05:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Anybody noticed that the“ Penguin News” webpage has been “Suspended”?
http://www.penguin-news.com/cgi-sys/suspendedpage.cgi
Didn't they pay the bill or did the Foreign & Colonial Office shut them down?
Any answers?
Chuckle chuckle
Having a go at ourselves does not help anyone but our enemies..
Apr 24th, 2013 - 06:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@17 History repeating itself? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1252738/Falkland-Islands-oil-row-Argentinian-hackers-post-flag-Penguin-News-website.html
Apr 24th, 2013 - 09:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#17
Apr 25th, 2013 - 11:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0March of the Malvinas. Isn't that the cartoon showing the peace loving Argies flying to the Falklands in a Super Etandard with a smiling child in the back seat and illustrations of Argentinian combat troops en route.
Penguin news should have a similar one made for their youngsters showing the Belgrano going glug,glug glug and the Argie troops surrendering in ignomy - all to a charming child's choir singing Rule Britannia..
No, that would be too much like the Argentinian way of life - that's the last thing the Falklanders would want.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!