To spend my morning watching the funeral of Maggie Thatcher (on BBC) ?

[JugglingFromHereToThere]

She was our first woman prime-minister - a significant personal achievement, especially for the daughter of a grocer from Grantham, born in 1925

Also I agree with those that say these ceremonial occasions are something we do really well in Britain.

So AIBU to be watching this morning - in spite of disagreeing with many of her policies ? Will you be watching ?
And what do you make of both her personal achievement and her legacy ?

Well it's not really measureable as an achievement.

I think capitalism had been 'achieved' before her. Karl Marx was writing about it in the 19th century.

Growlithe

flatpack can you explain what cumulative inflation is?

Sure. Imagine you have a decade where inflation is 5% per year. The cumulative inflation is not 10 x 5% = 50%. Because while in the first year inflation is 5% (100 1.05) in the second year it's 105 1.05, or 10.25%. So cumulative inflation for this putative decade is 62.89%, not 50%.

And do you have cumulative inflation for the period 1997 - 2010?

The link I posted lets you find out for yourself. It's around 44% IIRC.

Does anyone have figures for GDP for the period 1970 - 1980, although this period does span both Conservative and Labour governments IIRC?

You might be able to find them here.

Does anyone have any unemployment figures for these periods?

ONS is probably the best place, but the complexity that arises with unemployment is the mechanism for measuring it. What counts as an unemployed person, basically.

Does anyone have all three figures for the current administration?

Not to hand and I really ought to be doing some work.

I just want to compare eggs with eggs, and don't know how to find the figures.

It is tricksy, I'll grant you.

"and the scene with Bond at the Olympics, when Dave decided we needed cheering up. She's becoming a right old puppet for the government. A tool being used to tweak public morale to suit whoever is in power."

I rather doubt the Queen would see it that way!!

I don't think Cameron had anything to do with the Bond piece at the Olympics - the fact there was a new film in the making at the time may have influenced Danny Boyle.

I bet her advisors, when approached (perhaps by Lord Coe) would have said that appearing in the opening of the Olympics in that way would do her no harm, and become a piece of history to add to the fact it was her Diamond Jubilee year as monarch, give a bit of a boost for the UK holding the 2012 Olympics, and for herself show her not being so "out of touch" with popular culture (after having been seen to be so out of touch with the mood of the public, when Lady D died).

Ooops - was she still called Princess Diana ? Whatever the title, she was still incredibly popular, poor woman.

It was the military establishment showing off. Nowt to do with thatcher

Never actually called Princess Diana, I think. Diana, Princess of Wales, was the official title. I believe she would have to have been born royal, like Princess Anne to become Princess Diana. Not that I am an expert!

I acknowledge her achievements but deplore the effects of many of her policies.
I think to give her a ceremonial funeral on a par with Churchill's was wrong. It was a huge waste of money.A better memorial to the blessed Margaret would have been a charitable endowment in her name.
She was probably a 'great' woman but her humanity was lacking.
I could not watch the funeral but I couldn't make a public protest nor play a silly song.

We do funerls well but POINTLESSLY

I think to give her a ceremonial funeral on a par with Churchill's was wrong. It was a huge waste of money.

I agree and at the time of Churchill's funeral, the country was still quite prosperous. Swinging sixties and all that.

Eh? We are far wealthier now than in the 60s.

"We do funerals well but pointlessly @ boxer

There were moments I felt were slightly pointless - for me, as I said, there was a slightly excessive moving around of the body/coffin.
But that's just a personal view. If I was arranging a funeral I'd focus more on the service as a time of thanksgiving for the person's life. I quite like a good slide show actually ! But I think this funeral was very elegant with some very special music during the service.
I was pleased I'd tuned in just to hear that
(as well as to see London looking rather fine)

Political analysis that has developed here is good to see, though feeling slightly out of my depth with some of it. However thought last night's news was good in the extent it discussed the diversity of feeling on Thatcher's legacy around the country.

Debatable. We didn't have the extreme divide. We still had a manufacturing industry then. We still had full (male) employment as far as I recall.

Yes, I saw the "extra" coffin swap - that low doorway at the rebuilt church, where they had to manoeuvre awkwardly could have been completely avoided...

Surely coffin could have been removed from vehicle and placed on gun carriage in one go, but I suspect "time filling" was part of it, to be sure the people were seated in St Paul's and then give extra time so coffin would arrive after Thatcher family and Queen. Hence all the headgear off and headgear on palava...

For those who wanted to protest, a silent protest (with back turned) seemed the most appropriate as it showed the strength of feeling without actually causing offence. I was wondering how many would be seen with their backs toward the procession in the streets.

There was a small amount of "booing" heard, but I saw hardly anyone showing their backs (and felt there might be 30-40% doing so - it would have made the point well).

The Ludgate Circus "event" had little or no coverage (just a brief mention when we returned to see the horses and procession, on the BBC at least, saw that segment on my tablet).

Well in the 1960s the welfare state basically did not exist. There was no Child Benefit (1976), no tax credits (1971 but expanded continuously since). And hence a lot of real child poverty.

Today there is the NMW, tax credits, and so on, which mean that poor families can keep out of real poverty in a way which wasn't remotely possible for those on the margins of society in the 60s.

At that time people were essentially left to fend for themselves, whereas now millions are in receipt of welfare as a fundamental part of their income - for families at least there is a big safety net that didn't exist in the past.

In terms of the 60s being richer, talking about relative poverty (so if I own a 50-ft yacht but everyone else has 200-footers, I am 'relatively poor') strikes me as disingenuous, especially in this context.

Economic output, real median wages, and so on, are all now much higher - this is progress, the white heat of technology I guess.

LaVolcan

Debatable.

Mmm, not really. Here's a chart of GDP PPP - purchasing power parity, which takes in to account the rise in the cost of living over 50 years. We're, on average, 3 times wealthier now than we were 50 years ago.

We didn't have the extreme divide.

Well, no. Everyone was poor.

We still had a manufacturing industry then.

We have one now. No, it doesn't consist of sweaty men covered in soot beating slabs of metal together, but it's still manufacturing. We're the 8th largest producer of manufactured goods in the world. Primarily it's aerospace, high-precision engineering, medical and dental equipment rather than Manly Slabs Of Steel.

Certainly the number of manual labourers has fallen, but that isn't the same as manufacturing.

We still had full (male) employment as far as I recall.

Perhaps that was only because women were unemployed?

Yes indeed average women's wages were half that of men.

One of the reasons that welfare payments to families with children were resisted for as long as they were was that they were seen as emasculating men, with their duty to provide for the family. Even in the 70s such rhetoric was common.

One thing to pick up on Yoni - you say tax credits have "expanded continuously" since then (1971)
Well, I think you'll find they have been cut back quite considerably in the last few years (3 years is it) ?

Well in the 1960s the welfare state basically did not exist.

Sorry, don't make me laugh. We are talking about the 1960s, not the 1860s! I was alive then. There were Family Allowances, normally paid to the woman, and child tax allowances. This were subsequently amalgamated into the Child Benefit.

Well, no. Everyone was poor.
Far from it - my DH were discussing it the other night. We both remember it as a time of well-being. We lived in different parts of the country, so we are not just reflecting a north-south divide. We both went to newish i.e post war school buildings. The bomb-sites which had littered industrial areas until well into the 1950s had now been cleared, and new building was proceding apace. DH's family had a car. We didn't but quite a few neighbours did. The awful poverty of the 1930s that my MIL, PIL and father knew first hand was over.

We neither of us remember extremes of wealth, nor homeless in the streets.

I state male employment yes, because it's always bandied about that this is what we had, so I was actually trying to qualify it because it never was full employment. I did most definitely not agree with it. I well remember the time when salaries for jobs were advertised of the form - female £X, male -£2X. The 1975 Equalities legislation of a Labour government put paid to that.

We still don't have real equal pay though do we LaVolcan ? ("Labour government put paid to that")

Lots of traditionally female work such as child-care and to a lesser degree nursing (especially auxillary nursing) are very under-valued and still under paid.

Child care is, after all, also early years education for our children.

"Sorry, don't make me laugh. We are talking about the 1960s, not the 1860s! I was alive then. There were Family Allowances, normally paid to the woman, and child tax allowances. This were subsequently amalgamated into the Child Benefit."

The Family Allowance was not payable for the first child.

In 1966 the rate was 8/- a week, i.e. 40p/week, which was 1.7% of the average weekly wage.

The child tax allowances were specifically targeted at the middle class, basically the idea was that 'you've paid in, here's something back'. Originally income tax was only paid by the (relatively small) middle class,

So a poor family with one child got nothing.

Now they would get more than £80/week, which is 20% of the average weekly wages, and then there is Income Support or WTC as applicable as well.

"Well, I think you'll find they have been cut back quite considerably in the last few years (3 years is it) ?"

What makes you think that? As I understand it welfare spending has grown year on year for decades now. Real growth that is. From what I am aware there is no cut.

What there has been:

• cap on Housing Benefit rates - affects people in London & SE mostly. Not a cut in tax credits, e.g., people who did RTB or whatever wouldn't be affected.

And soon:

• £26k benefits cap - this is effectively only applies in London & SE because it would be hard to get that high without a large HB claim
• 'Bedroom tax' - this is a HB cut again, and not tax credits

We still don't have real equal pay though do we LaVolcan ? ("Labour government put paid to that")

No we don't, but it did put paid to the blatant discrimination, and put in a framework for challenging discrimination. It was by no means the whole deal but it was a start. I worked in factories as a student prior to this time, and it really used to anger me that young lads with no responsibilities were paid twice as much as women, many of whom were supporting families.

Or again with my father's family pre-war. His widowed mother was paid half the wage that a man doing exactly the same job was, despite the fact that her family responsibilities were just as great as theirs. (Hence no university education for my Dad, but that's upthread so I won't say it again.)

Makes me wonder why all former PMs don't get the pomp and ceremony or none, including MT. Quite over the top since we are paying and living in through these austere times.