h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Remember, Winston Churchill was a despised figure in many quarters, seen as a racist, opportunistic, warmongering and divisive figure. I have no doubt that there were many who objected at the time to his getting a state funeral, but the majority saw him as a great leader, if a flawed one. Similarly Thatcher was elected time and again and her policies embraced by succeeding generations of politicians so it's clear that the majority approve of her and her ideas.

Like the people who spoke out against Churchill, today's protestors will be forgotten.

https://www.gov.uk/funeral-payments/eligibility.

Churchill was a great war time leader but was disastrous in WWI with his Dardanelle campaign. He was also booted out of office soon after WWII for the visionary Clement Attlee, which heralded in the post-war social democracy consensus, which is said to have lasted up until Thatcher. Thatcher had her own war (The Falklands) and became tough on opposing the Soviet Union (with Reagan) that led to her Iron Lady image etc. I think those were good traits. But she basically ended the concept of society as conceived in those post war years - for a form of individualism and what became the neo-liberal consensus (selling everything off, deregulation and globalisation: I think she was just following Reagan's policies). The rich became richer, many of the middle classes got freebies (cheap houses, small number of shares in utilities etc). It heralded in the mega rich - the billionaires and the cult of the self. The Victorian Rich were philanthropists - pumping money into public works etc, the present day rich use their money mostly for toys such as premiership football teams.

>> Thatcher had her own war (The Falklands)<<

Not sure those that really compares with WW2. It's like me comparing myself to Edmund Hillary because I walked up the stairs and therefore we've both climbed mountains.

Churchill was no saint and made political and military errors and doubtless wasn't beloved by all. However, I'm unaware of any evidence that there was any controversy or any protests at him being granted a state funeral (or quasi-state funeral).

It would be extraordinary claim to make that Churchill was loathed by a similarly significant proportion of the population as Thatcher is. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

There are many differences between Thatcher and Churchill that led to few people, if any, objecting to a state funeral, but the one that stands out most for me is that Churchill was seen as someone who brought the country together in the face of an enemy from outside, whereas Thatcher divided the country and is considered by her detractors as the enemy from within. I think that's an important consideration here.

Indeed. Although a divisive figure, Churchill did more for this country than Thatcher did. So did Clement Attlee, for that matter...

On a slightly more upbeat tangent, does anyone fancy chipping in to buy this?

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/330909292355?ru=http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html%3F_from%3DR40%26_sacat%3D0%26_nkw%3D330909292355%26_rdc%3D1

Just to echo some of the comments regarding Churchill - many perceived that through his actions - he helped to prevent the annihilation of Great Britain. If Hitler had so planned he could have put all his efforts into invading Great Britain rather than leaving it just to the Luftwaffe with his main thoughts and focus of heading east to Russia. I'm not sure Thatcher's achievements could match that (although some claim she played a pivotal role in helping to "defeat" the Soviet Union).

Let us not forget that moving an army across the channel
is not an easy task. That's what stopped Napoleon and it
stopped Hitler and to a lesser extent it stopped every other
invader since Willy the Conq (with the possible circumstantial
exceptions of the Dutch and William of Orange).

It took the Allies over four years to gather together the
resources necessary for an invasion, including little known
(top secret) underwater pipelines to supply the fuel for all
the tanks and trucks going ashore in Normandy.

Flood the Chunnel and Great Britain would once again be free
to enjoy the incestuous joys of being an unconquerable island.


~jwf~

Otto -

My parents met at a party in a Polish club in Aberdeenshire held to celebrate Churchill's death in 1965 ( I arrived a year later so perhaps Churchill can be blamed for me ). He was despised and vilified by the Poles. My Granny always referred to him as "that terrible man who changed the clocks" . For all Thatcher's struggle with the unions, she never sent tanks and 10,000 troops into Glasgow's George Square to quell rioting workers. Churchill wasn't averse to sending in troops against civilians - I was told by someone who was there that when he fled London with his mother in 1940 after the fall of Dunkirk, they made their way to Liverpool to try and get on a ship leaving the country. When he got there, there were already thousands of others intent on the same thing but troops opened fire on the crowds to keep them away. That's one I've never found on the internet but I have absolutely no reason to disbelieve the man who told me about it.

So when Churchill died there were a *lot* of people with very good reason to protest. But, the 1960s were a *very* different time compared to now. People would have been apalled and disgusted at the thought of disrupting a funeral. There was also no internet to help whip up some kind of solidarity and - perhaps crucially - we'd had twenty years of state propaganda about British Bulldog Spirit, Stiff Upper Lips, the Spirit of the Blitz and of Churchill the great leader. Compare that to now when we have had twenty odd years of left wing Thatcher vilification in the press. To listen to some quarters, Thatcher ate kittens, bathed in the breastmilk of widowed miners, invented Aids and fought for the Confederacy to preserve her cotton plantation.

I think there were similar proportions of people who disliked Churchill and Thatcher both, but we live in a very different society now - one which is more willing & able to mount protests and which has many more ways to do so.

Churchill consistently warned of the dangers of Nazism even when most politians were appeasers
Thatcher appeased and supported fascist leaders and by cutting Foreign Officer spending on intelligence in Latin America failed to see a threat that the previous government had successfully deterred

Interesting to see George Osbourne blubbering at the funeral when he clearly has no tears for the poor and the vulnerable, and rather chilling we are governed by people who weep at the death of "the Leader" but show so liitle compassion and understanding when it comes to those in real need.

Also very appropriate Thatcher was carted off on First World War gun carriage - truely the Earl Haig of her times

I was surprised he even had that in him truth be told

<> because that's what the public wanted!!! There was absolutely no appetite for war in Britain. Chamberlain was cheered to the rafters in Britain before and after his "Peace in our time" speech and serious political historians accept that his actions were correct at the time.

The fact that appeasement was widely (but far from universally) supported shows Churchill had the courage of his convictions and the insight to see a threat many people simply could not - it is easy to be wise with hindsight but people who had gone through the full horror of the First World War simply could not concieve that another nation that had gone through the same ghastly experience could actually want war.

"Argentina exerted pressure at the United Nations by raising subtle hints of a possible invasion, but the British either missed or ignored this threat and did not react. The Argentines assumed that the British would not use force if the islands were invaded.

According to British sources, the Argentines interpreted the failure of the British to react as a lack of interest in the Falklands due to the planned withdrawal (as part of a general reduction in size of the Royal Navy in 1981) of the last of the Antarctic Supply vessels, HMS Endurance, and by the British Nationality Act of 1981, which replaced the full British citizenship of Falkland Islanders with a more limited version".

"Under the British Nationality Act 1981, a resident of the Falkland Islands was classed as a British Dependent Territories citizen unless he or she also had a connection with the United Kingdom (UK) itself (such as through having a UK-born parent or grandparent). British Dependent Territories citizens were restricted in their right to enter and stay in the UK."

"The British Nationality (Falkland Islands) Act 1983 was an Act of Parliament passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom on 28 March 1983. The purpose of the Act was to grant British citizenship to residents of the Falkland Islands, a British Dependent Territory in the South Atlantic. ... [This] Act conferred full British citizenship on the residents of the Falkland Islands, giving them similar status to that of citizens in Gibraltar. ... The 1983 Act was passed mainly in response to the Falklands War,"

from wiki

Mein Kampf (English: My Struggle or My Battle) is a book by Nazi leader Adolf Hitler. It combines elements of autobiography with an exposition of Hitler's political ideology. Volume 1 of Mein Kampf was published in 1925 and Volume 2 in 1926. I think a cursory read of this would have indicated what Hitler was after.

"Remember, Winston Churchill was a despised figure in many quarters, seen as a racist, opportunistic, warmongering and divisive figure. I have no doubt that there were many who objected at the time to his getting a state funeral, but the majority saw him as a great leader, if a flawed one. Similarly Thatcher was elected time and again and her policies embraced by succeeding generations of politicians so it's clear that the majority approve of her and her ideas "

Churchill was only elected once in 1951 (after which he was forced to embrace the policies of the previous Labour government and accept the National Health Service, Welfare State, One Nation politics and the end of empire) - people saw him as a great war leader and a divisive peace time leader which is why he was swept from power in 1945.

Thatcher never got more than 40% of the popular vote and she was thrown out by her own party because she had become so unpopular that she was an electoral liability. True he policies were continued by Major, Blair and Brown and what a bloody mess that has got us into - future generations will question the culture of greed she fostered the disenfanchisement of so many and failures to address poverty and environmental issues.

During Thatcher's reign the opposition became "unelectable" with a militant tendency faction and with the Gang of Four leaving labour - causing a split in the opposition vote. The labours unilateral nuclear disarmament policy during and after the Falklands war was disastrous, & then you It's The Sun Wot Won It propaganda.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_The_Sun_Wot_Won_It

For Tony Blair to get elected he had to run to Rupert Murdoch to get his blessing.