One of the best books I've ever read on WW1 is Gordon Corrgan's 'mud, blood and poppycock'. It explodes all sorts of blackaddering myths about the British army in WW1 and Haig in particular.
One of the cleverest point Corrigan makes is that Haig had no precedent whatsoever. He commanded an army many times bigger than anything any Briton had ever commanded before.
Another brilliant point is executions of British servicemen. There were 300 or so, even though there were 3,000 sentences of death by court martial in the field that came across Hague's desk (he had the final say).
I'm sure the point has been made in the last few days on here that Mrs T's EU rebate has been worth £75bn so £10m or whatever for her funeral is peanuts. She was a huge World figure and penny pinching sends out completely the wrong message about Britain. Trust Mr Smithson in his present red tinged glasses once again to pick up on a mean spirited poll in a pathetic little paper.
Avery LP - List of State Funerals etc. What an interesting list ! The decision to have a state funeral for Lord Carson seems really strange, and the decision to have one for Lord Napier of Magdala (whose only claim to fame was a very easy military victory over the Emperor of Ethiopia) must have been questionable even at the time, but otherwise the choice of who to have state funerals for seems to have been remarkably sound, and reflects unexpected credit on those who took the necessary decisions.
The State funeral of Lord Carson was held in Belfast which did somewhat narrow or focus the field of mourning.
Avery LP - List of State Funerals etc. What an interesting list ! The decision to have a state funeral for Lord Carson seems really strange, and the decision to have one for Lord Napier of Magdala (whose only claim to fame was a very easy military victory over the Emperor of Ethiopia) must have been questionable even at the time, but otherwise the choice of who to have state funerals for seems to have been remarkably sound, and reflects unexpected credit on those who took the necessary decisions.
The State funeral of Lord Carson was held in Belfast which did somewhat narrow or focus the field of mourning.
One of the best books I've ever read on WW1 is Gordon Corrgan's 'mud, blood and poppycock'. It explodes all sorts of blackaddering myths about the British army in WW1 and Haig in particular.
One of the cleverest point Corrigan makes is that Haig had no precedent whatsoever. He commanded an army many times bigger than anything any Briton had ever commanded before.
Another brilliant point is executions of British servicemen. There were 300 or so, even though there were 3,000 sentences of death by court martial in the field that came across Hague's desk (he had the final say).
He commuted 9 in 10.
It is a book that I would firmly recommend for anyone interested in that war.
I don't think its necessarily difficult to hold conflicting views of the war - that it was a great waste of life and a long and brutal struggle but also that it was a difficult war to organize and that many of the 'facts' of the war are based in untruths and logical fallacies. It may seem obvious, linking armies to planes to artillery. But only 10 years before the war, there weren't even planes. I imagine you'd find similar statistics about communications and artillery.
I honestly think people don't tend to consider the level of logistics required to fight a war on any scale. In this one, suddenly, all of the old conventions were blown away and people had to learn on their feet. Of course, it was difficult. Of course, there were mistakes. On top of the usual loss of life in any conflict.
From another discussion a few months make, I made this contribution that only had a few CiFers attacking it:
"The casualty rate was highest in junior officers, iirc. And Haig's funeral in the 1920s ended up a national holiday. And the usual nonsense about the tactics - the Somme was designed not to break German lines but relieve the beleaguered French garrisons around Verdun. Once combined arms warfare was designed and implemented, the war quickly ended.
But the scar the war left affected everything - the ill-fated quest for appeasement in the 1930s, the war-injured on the streets of the UK, the towns and villages left with marble towers mourning a real 'lost generation', talented, clever young men with lives ahead of them.Not all would have been great men, not all would have done great things, but they had the potential to."
Thanks. I know Corrigan's book and it is rather good. Certainly an essential primer for anyone wanting to study or comment on WW1 - his chapter on why the UK had to join in I found particularly compelling. He certainly explodes a lot of myths.
On WW1 military executions, frankly so much rubbish has been written about these and so many myths established as truth that I long ago gave up entering any debate on the subject.
It's a little rich to expect the Thatcher estate to pay for a state-provided ceremonial funeral. I can understand the view that Margaret Thatcher should not have been provided with a ceremonial funeral (I'm pretty ambivalent on the subject). But if she is to be given one, the state has to pay.
If you throw a party for a guest of honour, you don't send them an invoice afterwards for the cost.
Have you organised a wedding recently? I'm a bit surprised at what passes for normal procedure these days.
It sounds like £5,000 per head for those in the Cathedral would pay for the whole thing, and most of those said to be attending could afford that without a second thought.
I may be missing something but isn't all of this out of Cameron's hands? Wasn't it all decided under Blair and would it not be going against the wishes of Her Majesty?
It seems to me that the propagandists of the left are creating their own little fantasy world again (the real one rarely fits their zealotry).....
PS How convenient that it is a poll from the Mirror. First of rule polling. Pollsters won't keep getting work if they don't find in the way their clients want....
Some enquired about the ages of Nancy Reagan and Gorby earlier - since they can't attend - is this chappy the oldest confirmed guest so far?
RT @MichaelLCrick: Sir Clive Bossom, 95, confirms he'll go to Thatcher funeral. He was MT's PPS when she was junior pensions minister under Macmillan early 60s
OT - am thinking of watching Lost - what's it like? I see there are 6 series...</blockquo It is totally unbelievable,worth watching to how really bad a series can be
I think it's a shame more politicians don't engage fully with Wikipedia (as a Wikipedian). The page-views are modest (thousands a day), but if you could create a well-written biography it would be interesting to a wide audience, and most politicians would love people to know where they come from both literally and metaphorically.
(NPXMP of this borough's Wikipedia article is unobjectionable.)
BoredinParis posted, inter alia: "The casualty rate was highest in junior officers, iirc."
There was some work done in Scotland about 5 years ago (I think) which showed that, of the cohorts at school in specific year the late 20's and early 30's, the brightest young men had the shortest lives. An 11 year old in 1927 or so was of course 22 in 1939.
I think it's a shame more politicians don't engage fully with Wikipedia (as a Wikipedian). The page-views are modest (thousands a day), but if you could create a well-written biography it would be interesting to a wide audience, and most politicians would love people to know where they come from both literally and metaphorically.
(NPXMP of this borough's Wikipedia article is unobjectionable.)
I didn't write it, but I've used it a lot in my international travels for my non-partisan work - I've found it opens doors to have a Wikipedia entry as it somehow legitimises you. I think a lot of politicians are shy of the rules about editing these things about themselves - they think they'll get done over by the media if they say anything remotely positive.
The Spectator are looking for a researcher: "If you can make a scatter graph in Excel then you have all the expertise required. What matters most of all is flair, resourcefulness and capacity for hard work."
Some enquired about the ages of Nancy Reagan and Gorby earlier - since they can't attend - is this chappy the oldest confirmed guest so far?
RT @MichaelLCrick: Sir Clive Bossom, 95, confirms he'll go to Thatcher funeral. He was MT's PPS when she was junior pensions minister under Macmillan early 60s
Gorby is still relatively young, only 82, but he hasn't been seen out and about much since 2009.
Using illness as an excuse to avoid overseas travel or unwanted meetings was standard practice in the Soviet Union.
It is possible it is being used here as Gorbachev never subscribed to the view that the end of communism resulted from the hardline opposition of Reagan and Thatcher. Attending Thatcher's funeral would only give vent to further propagation of this unwanted 'myth'.
There is also a possibility that current Russian government policy is to marginalise Britain and to undermine the US-UK "special relationship". Whilst I accept this would be current thinking in the Kremlin, I am more inclined to believe that it would act as a spur to Gorbachev to act against official policy.
I also think the Kremlin should be more concerned with Dave and Angela holing up in Meseburg for the weekend. But Putin only has himself to blame here: the Camerons will be taking their children but not the family dog!
As for Nancy Reagan, I believe she really is too frail to attend. Her last public engagement was 2009 in the White House and that showed her to be knocking at the gates of heaven. She is ten years older than Gorby. Still, she may never have forgiven Maggie for stealing her Ronnie's affections. Attending the funeral would at least enable us to determine whether she is more Queen Victoria than Vicky Pryce.
I've used it a lot in my international travels for my non-partisan work - I've found it opens doors to have a Wikipedia entry as it somehow legitimises you.
BoredinParis posted, inter alia: "The casualty rate was highest in junior officers, iirc."
There was some work done in Scotland about 5 years ago (I think) which showed that, of the cohorts at school in specific year the late 20's and early 30's, the brightest young men had the shortest lives. An 11 year old in 1927 or so was of course 22 in 1939.
Can't remember the title of the study!
OKC.
Personal memories of WWI were still fresh when I was at prep school in the sixties. Our headmaster had been a pupil at the school at the turn of the century and later went on to fight in WWI.
On Remembrance Day, he used to read out a separate list of names from the main roll of honour, all of whom were his contemporaries and each of whom had slept in a single named dormitory still being used by the school. Of the eight in the dormitory only one, he himself, had survived the war.
This special remembrance has had a very strong effect on me since. Especially as it led to my contemporaries, sometimes frivolously but also ghoulishly, speculating on who would have been the survivor in their own dormitory.
"The Tories are badly overplaying the Thatcher cards and it's going to hurt them unless they rein in their hubris soon."
I quite agree. There should have been a normal funeral, paid for by the family, followed by a memorial service, attended by the great and the good, not all this expensive pomposity / recalls of Parliament and all the rest of it.
She was a public servant not the Head of State. The responses given by political parties (all of them) when she died were dignified, decent and appropriate (Ed Milliband got this very right and deserves credit - he has gone up in my estimation). And that was all that was needed.
Now we're going to get the same hoo-ha over every other PM/accusations of bias etc. All very unnecessary
'in the week of her demise the country is still totally split over Mrs. Thatcher'
My country seems reasonably unified.
“Margaret Thatcher deserves a ceremonial funeral with full military honours like the Queen Mother and Princess Diana” North & Scotland Agree 29% Disagree 51% “The Thatcher family, rather than the taxpayer, should pay the bulk of the estimated £10million cost for Margaret Thatcher’s ceremonial funeral” North & Scotland Agree 60% Disagree 19% “It is appropriate to spend taxpayer’s money on a ceremonial funeral for Margaret Thatcher at the present time” North & Scotland Agree 18% Disagree 62% “Margaret Thatcher changed Britain – for the better” North & Scotland Agree 32% Disagree 45% “David Cameron was right to describe Margaret Thatcher as the greatest British peacetime Prime Minister” North & Scotland Agree 35% Disagree 44%
"Argentina has criticised the decision to not invite Cristina Kirchner to Margaret Thatcher's funeral, describing it as "another provocation", with regards to the Falkland Islands."
"Argentina has criticised the decision to not invite Cristina Kirchner to Margaret Thatcher's funeral, describing it as "another provocation", with regards to the Falkland Islands."
Might just have been a clever FCO ploy.
Announce she is not invited, wait for her to complain, then backtrack and issue the invitation.
What does she do then?
Much better than giving her the opportunity to flamboyantly decline an original invitation.
Geographically, indubitably. However feel free to make the case that if it wasn't for those pesky Scousers and Geordies skewing the figures, Scotland would be shown to be jumping at the chance to provide Magrit's funeral meats.
"Today’s reaction to the former prime minister’s article in the New Statesman certainly has an air of: ‘so what does three-time election winner Tony Blair think he knows about winning elections?’"
Something for tim and all the other lefties (and fruitcakes) who keep going on about Cam's and Os's capabilities. This government has achieved more than in 2+ years than Labour did in 13 years - and I've not included stuff including education.... http://conservativehome.blogs.com/.a/6a00d83451b31c69e2017d4247fd90970c-pi
Good article Mike. I know a lot of people think MT was great, but I've been surprised by the extent of both antipathy and ambivalence towards her. On both counts there's no doubt Cameron and the Righteous Right have so over-played their hand that they've generated a backlash. I think the main element though is that this is so long ago. To be honest, I don't think the majority of voters now give much hoot about it. Those days are long gone, the nation moved on and the biggest problem all this serves is to illustrate that the Conservatives don't seem to have.
Support for the IRA wasnt limited to the Democratic party, Carlotta.
I remember when Gerry Adams went to the states, he would be asked some hilariously uninformed questions by the media such as; why don't the British just let the Irish rule themselves???
Adams: ......err......
Even more hilariously, the Brits send Michael Mates to counter Adams. Talk about the old club f8rt with the soup stained tie dozing on the chesterfield in the corner...
If you treat a politician like royalty it is bound to be controversial.
Personally I have no problem with a public funeral, but there is something moderately ironic about the champion of all things private getting her funeral on the state.
If Jimmy Saville had still been alive would he have been on the invite list? He did of course, spend a few Christmas hols with the Thatchers.
I suppose that depends if the BBC and others had reacted to some of the whistle blowers, and grassed him to the feds. Anyway, I thought we couldn't talk about him on here?
I may be missing something but isn't all of this out of Cameron's hands? Wasn't it all decided
It was all decided but the Prime Minister ripped up the arrangements, much to the surprise of the Speaker. As the OP says, Cameron may have misread the public mood.
If you treat a politician like royalty it is bound to be controversial.
Personally I have no problem with a public funeral, but there is something moderately ironic about the champion of all things private getting her funeral on the state.
Given she's dead I doubt they've consulted her on the matter.
"The Tories are badly overplaying the Thatcher cards and it's going to hurt them unless they rein in their hubris soon."
I quite agree. There should have been a normal funeral, paid for by the family, followed by a memorial service, attended by the great and the good, not all this expensive pomposity / recalls of Parliament and all the rest of it.
She was a public servant not the Head of State. The responses given by political parties (all of them) when she died were dignified, decent and appropriate (Ed Milliband got this very right and deserves credit - he has gone up in my estimation). And that was all that was needed.
Now we're going to get the same hoo-ha over every other PM/accusations of bias etc. All very unnecessary
Hmm tend to agree. Clearly something dignified and respectful and somewhat out the the ordinary was called for but it does seem a bit overblown (though it is a quietish time news wise - Easter recess and all - unless Kim in N Korea plays with the matches too enthusiastically) and the meeja have to report something.
Ed M was good yesterday but I don't think his task was a tough as made out in that once you are generous you will in all liklihood get the plaudits. Still he tucked the chance away nicely, so to speak, and I don't think wall to wall Mrs T is playing as well as some in Tory HQ might've thought.
I may be missing something but isn't all of this out of Cameron's hands? Wasn't it all decided
It was all decided but the Prime Minister ripped up the arrangements, much to the surprise of the Speaker. As the OP says, Cameron may have misread the public mood.
Source?
Apart from The Guardian - which has already been knocked back on some details today....
And even the Guardian didn't claim that the decision on the Ceremonial Funeral other than pre-dates Cameron's premiership.....
Perhaps of more interest is whether the letters between Thatcher and Savile will now be released uncensored.
Censored, Savile's private letters to Mrs Thatcher: Files edited two months ago... AFTER child abuse claims surfaced Letter from Jimmy Savile to former PM released under 30-year rule Declares his love for her in gushing 1980 note written following a lunch Also refers to his 'girl patients' and says 'they all love you' But other correspondence between the two has been censored Savile spent 11 consecutive New Year's Eves with Mrs Thatcher
Savile spent 11 consecutive New Year's Eves with Mrs Thatcher
According to Savile, and not the official Chequers log - but nice to see you are still peddling the lies of one of the UK's most prolific child molestors....
If Jimmy Saville had still been alive would he have been on the invite list? He did of course, spend a few Christmas hols with the Thatchers.
What would concern me more, Mike, would be allowing UKIP youth leaders to pay their last respects to the Blessed Margaret while she is lying in the Chapel of St Mary Undercroft.
And it is not the closet racists, loonies and fruitcakes which worry me.
Avery LP - List of State Funerals etc. What an interesting list ! The decision to have a state funeral for Lord Carson seems really strange, and the decision to have one for Lord Napier of Magdala (whose only claim to fame was a very easy military victory over the Emperor of Ethiopia) must have been questionable even at the time, but otherwise the choice of who to have state funerals for seems to have been remarkably sound, and reflects unexpected credit on those who took the necessary decisions.
The State funeral of Lord Carson was held in Belfast which did somewhat narrow or focus the field of mourning.
He was however a Kent boy.
Which bit of being born and brought up in Castle Lambert, Athenry, sitting as the MP for TCD, serving as Solicitor General for Ireland, and finally walking 'the high road to treason and despair' makes him a Kent boy?
As an aside - I'm surprised that he had a state funeral (fan of his though I am). Could the decision have been made by Stormont?
Avery LP - List of State Funerals etc. What an interesting list ! The decision to have a state funeral for Lord Carson seems really strange, and the decision to have one for Lord Napier of Magdala (whose only claim to fame was a very easy military victory over the Emperor of Ethiopia) must have been questionable even at the time, but otherwise the choice of who to have state funerals for seems to have been remarkably sound, and reflects unexpected credit on those who took the necessary decisions.
The State funeral of Lord Carson was held in Belfast which did somewhat narrow or focus the field of mourning.
He was however a Kent boy.
Which bit of being born and brought up in Castle Lambert, Athenry, sitting as the MP for TCD, serving as Solicitor General for Ireland, and finally walking 'the high road to treason and despair' makes him a Kent boy?
As an aside - I'm surprised that he had a state funeral (fan of his though I am). Could the decision have been made by Stormont?
Died at his home in Minster, near Canterbury, Charles.
As to who made the decision it would have to have been Parliament on motion by the government under Baldwin.
Comments
http://tinyurl.com/cgyyzbk
http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2013/04/six-theses-on-the-death-of-margaret-thatcher.html
I don't think its necessarily difficult to hold conflicting views of the war - that it was a great waste of life and a long and brutal struggle but also that it was a difficult war to organize and that many of the 'facts' of the war are based in untruths and logical fallacies. It may seem obvious, linking armies to planes to artillery. But only 10 years before the war, there weren't even planes. I imagine you'd find similar statistics about communications and artillery.
I honestly think people don't tend to consider the level of logistics required to fight a war on any scale. In this one, suddenly, all of the old conventions were blown away and people had to learn on their feet. Of course, it was difficult. Of course, there were mistakes. On top of the usual loss of life in any conflict.
From another discussion a few months make, I made this contribution that only had a few CiFers attacking it:
"The casualty rate was highest in junior officers, iirc. And Haig's funeral in the 1920s ended up a national holiday. And the usual nonsense about the tactics - the Somme was designed not to break German lines but relieve the beleaguered French garrisons around Verdun. Once combined arms warfare was designed and implemented, the war quickly ended.
But the scar the war left affected everything - the ill-fated quest for appeasement in the 1930s, the war-injured on the streets of the UK, the towns and villages left with marble towers mourning a real 'lost generation', talented, clever young men with lives ahead of them.Not all would have been great men, not all would have done great things, but they had the potential to."
Thanks. I know Corrigan's book and it is rather good. Certainly an essential primer for anyone wanting to study or comment on WW1 - his chapter on why the UK had to join in I found particularly compelling. He certainly explodes a lot of myths.
On WW1 military executions, frankly so much rubbish has been written about these and so many myths established as truth that I long ago gave up entering any debate on the subject.
http://www.slideshare.net/IpsosMORI/margaret-thatcher-poll-rating-trends
It sounds like £5,000 per head for those in the Cathedral would pay for the whole thing, and most of those said to be attending could afford that without a second thought.
I was astonished when I found out British regiments did not generally spend 6 months at a time waist deep in water.
All regiments were rotated through the line on a weekly or bi weekly basis. Still horrible of course, but not at all what we are led to believe.
It seems to me that the propagandists of the left are creating their own little fantasy world again (the real one rarely fits their zealotry).....
PS How convenient that it is a poll from the Mirror. First of rule polling. Pollsters won't keep getting work if they don't find in the way their clients want....
They make a fine couple.
RT @MichaelLCrick: Sir Clive Bossom, 95, confirms he'll go to Thatcher funeral. He was MT's PPS when she was junior pensions minister under Macmillan early 60s
(NPXMP of this borough's Wikipedia article is unobjectionable.)
http://s.telegraph.co.uk/graphics/viewer.html?doc=202593-doc27
What's wrong with 'Double Oscar Winning Actress' or even 'MP for Hampstead and Highgate?'
Mother of the wretched Dan is just unkind.
There was some work done in Scotland about 5 years ago (I think) which showed that, of the cohorts at school in specific year the late 20's and early 30's, the brightest young men had the shortest lives.
An 11 year old in 1927 or so was of course 22 in 1939.
Can't remember the title of the study!
"If you can make a scatter graph in Excel then you have all the expertise required. What matters most of all is flair, resourcefulness and capacity for hard work."
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/04/wanted-researcher/
Using illness as an excuse to avoid overseas travel or unwanted meetings was standard practice in the Soviet Union.
It is possible it is being used here as Gorbachev never subscribed to the view that the end of communism resulted from the hardline opposition of Reagan and Thatcher. Attending Thatcher's funeral would only give vent to further propagation of this unwanted 'myth'.
There is also a possibility that current Russian government policy is to marginalise Britain and to undermine the US-UK "special relationship". Whilst I accept this would be current thinking in the Kremlin, I am more inclined to believe that it would act as a spur to Gorbachev to act against official policy.
I also think the Kremlin should be more concerned with Dave and Angela holing up in Meseburg for the weekend. But Putin only has himself to blame here: the Camerons will be taking their children but not the family dog!
As for Nancy Reagan, I believe she really is too frail to attend. Her last public engagement was 2009 in the White House and that showed her to be knocking at the gates of heaven. She is ten years older than Gorby. Still, she may never have forgiven Maggie for stealing her Ronnie's affections. Attending the funeral would at least enable us to determine whether she is more Queen Victoria than Vicky Pryce.
I am so relieved to find you alive and kicking.
But then SpAd's often lack life experience.
Who knows, tim?
Personal memories of WWI were still fresh when I was at prep school in the sixties. Our headmaster had been a pupil at the school at the turn of the century and later went on to fight in WWI.
On Remembrance Day, he used to read out a separate list of names from the main roll of honour, all of whom were his contemporaries and each of whom had slept in a single named dormitory still being used by the school. Of the eight in the dormitory only one, he himself, had survived the war.
This special remembrance has had a very strong effect on me since. Especially as it led to my contemporaries, sometimes frivolously but also ghoulishly, speculating on who would have been the survivor in their own dormitory.
I quite agree. There should have been a normal funeral, paid for by the family, followed by a memorial service, attended by the great and the good, not all this expensive pomposity / recalls of Parliament and all the rest of it.
She was a public servant not the Head of State. The responses given by political parties (all of them) when she died were dignified, decent and appropriate (Ed Milliband got this very right and deserves credit - he has gone up in my estimation). And that was all that was needed.
Now we're going to get the same hoo-ha over every other PM/accusations of bias etc. All very unnecessary
My country seems reasonably unified.
“Margaret Thatcher deserves a ceremonial funeral with full military honours like the Queen Mother and Princess Diana”
North & Scotland Agree 29% Disagree 51%
“The Thatcher family, rather than the taxpayer, should pay the bulk of the estimated £10million cost for Margaret Thatcher’s ceremonial funeral”
North & Scotland Agree 60% Disagree 19%
“It is appropriate to spend taxpayer’s money on a ceremonial funeral for Margaret Thatcher at the present time”
North & Scotland Agree 18% Disagree 62%
“Margaret Thatcher changed Britain – for the better”
North & Scotland Agree 32% Disagree 45%
“David Cameron was right to describe Margaret Thatcher as the greatest British peacetime Prime Minister”
North & Scotland Agree 35% Disagree 44%
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatcher/9987468/Margaret-Thatcher-funeral-no-Cristina-Kirchner-invite-another-provocation.html
"Argentina has criticised the decision to not invite Cristina Kirchner to Margaret Thatcher's funeral, describing it as "another provocation", with regards to the Falkland Islands."
Jolly good....
Announce she is not invited, wait for her to complain, then backtrack and issue the invitation.
What does she do then?
Much better than giving her the opportunity to flamboyantly decline an original invitation.
"DEMOCRATS ARE BLOCKING RESOLUTION TO HONOR LADY THATCHER"
http://heritageaction.com/2013/04/democrats-are-blocking-resolution-to-honor-lady-thatcher/
I wonder if these are 'Irish Freedom Fighting Funders' Democrats?
They should have asked
"Do you agree that cute nurses should be sacked whilst whilst we splash out millions on an funeral for ex Tory PM Maggie Fatcha" ?
Perhaps they should do a poll every time the royal family leave the house - as that isn't cheap either.
Surprised such an obvious push poll got a thread to itself to be honest.
It's a shame Kirchner isn't going. Looks like she's well up for all-in hair pulling girly fighting in inappropriate places, like outside a church.
The BBC should know their place. Their job is to cover the funeral not attend it.
You will be telling me Chris Patten has been invited next.
See, for instance, the odious Peter Thomas King:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_T._King
http://labourlist.org/2013/04/labours-angry-brigade-has-misunderstood-blairs-message/
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/.a/6a00d83451b31c69e2017d4247fd90970c-pi
I think the main element though is that this is so long ago. To be honest, I don't think the majority of voters now give much hoot about it. Those days are long gone, the nation moved on and the biggest problem all this serves is to illustrate that the Conservatives don't seem to have.
I remember when Gerry Adams went to the states, he would be asked some hilariously uninformed questions by the media such as; why don't the British just let the Irish rule themselves???
Adams: ......err......
Even more hilariously, the Brits send Michael Mates to counter Adams. Talk about the old club f8rt with the soup stained tie dozing on the chesterfield in the corner...
Obvious trolling - but unlikely as he would have been on remand facing trial.
All this indulging tim is rubbing off on you.
Yes Plato was peddling that load of nonsense months ago. You must be one of Con Home's junior apprentices if you're still being asked to sell that.
Personally I have no problem with a public funeral, but there is something moderately ironic about the champion of all things private getting her funeral on the state.
Ed M was good yesterday but I don't think his task was a tough as made out in that once you are generous you will in all liklihood get the plaudits. Still he tucked the chance away nicely, so to speak, and I don't think wall to wall Mrs T is playing as well as some in Tory HQ might've thought.
Apart from The Guardian - which has already been knocked back on some details today....
And even the Guardian didn't claim that the decision on the Ceremonial Funeral other than pre-dates Cameron's premiership.....
And it is not the closet racists, loonies and fruitcakes which worry me.
A pity Jade Goody is no longer with us. Perhaps Sir Mark or the Honorable Carole can persuade Jordan
How many have you seen?
http://i1.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article89849.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/image-6-for-the-real-jimmy-saville-gallery-396885890.jpg
As an aside - I'm surprised that he had a state funeral (fan of his though I am). Could the decision have been made by Stormont?
.....I had wondered how you'd try to smear Thatcher....now we know.....
"As a former BBC employee did you ever hear any rumours about Jimmy Saville being a child abuser?"
".....I had wondered how you'd try to smear Thatcher....now we know....."
Thatcher-like Saville-is unsmearable.
As to who made the decision it would have to have been Parliament on motion by the government under Baldwin.
Disgusted from Hurstpierpoint.
The guardian used to say he had an educated left foot.