Margaret Thatcher should not be granted a state funeral

Every Brit will love a Thatcher State funeralBritain has three groups of subjects to be considered. A State funeral brings joy to each of the three categories, so it will be of universal benefit and should certainly be undertaken. The first group comprises capitalists, believers in freedom, some of the Tories, and those who can remember when Britain was saved by Thatcher from becoming a Third World country. These people generally have complete sets of underwear fashioned with the pattern of the Union Jack. They loved Prime Minister Thatcher for her having restored a measure of free market enterprise and prosperity to the nation. I am certain that even my opponent will agree that a State funeral honoring the former Prime Minister would bring joy to these people. Current estimates of the size of this group vary, but I put it at nearly 3.2% of the population. They are enthusiast beyond their numbers. The second category are the revolutionary socialists whom my honorable opponent so ably represents. These people have homes decorated with graphics of steel workers portrayed against fiery blast furnaces, and every evening they shake a clenched fist in the air as they curse anyone who is successful. The joy of their life is hating and denouncing everyone who disagrees with them, but especially opposing politicians who have achieved success. Even when in power they require someone else to blame for their failures, and what with Jews no longer considered acceptable as scapegoats, they critically depend upon people like Mrs. Thatcher to sustain them. Without hatred, they lose all vitality and the focal point of their existence becomes giving polite applause at cricket matches. A State funeral would benefit these people more than a blood transfusion benefits a gun shot victim. My current estimate is that revolutionary socialists are currently 5.7% of the population, but they seem many more because they move about screaming to discourage accurate counting. My opponent conceded he would celebrate the Prime Minister's passing and assures us "millions of other British people will join" him. this confirms my argument that revolutionary socialists thrive on hatred, and also that there are millions of them (5.7% of 63 million subjects is over 3 million). If my opponent's joy is so great that he wishes to organize informally nationwide that's fine, but he shouldn't deny the formal ceremony that the great majority prefers. The great majority of the British population, now put at 91.1%, greatly enjoys any type of formal ceremony with little regard for the reason. With royals generally living for so long these days there has been a death of state funerals, save the chance occurrences like the car crash that did in Princess Di. (Technically, Royals have Royal Ceremonial Funerals rather than State Funerals, but the distinction is a concern only to the type of people who worry about distinguishing dusky seaside sparrows from regular seaside sparrows. ) The population would be entirely dispirited were it not for the increased frequency of royal weddings and the availability of substitute occasions for elaborate shows of pomp. In America, guards are changed with at most blowing a whistle, and more often by just having the staff look at their wristwatches. In Britain, the joy of ceremony is so great that the shift change is accomplished with plumed horses, drums, and elaborate costumes with crested hats. Currently, rumor has it that the lack of State funerals has lead a Committee of Parliament to consider giving formal "quasi-State" funerals whenever one of the Queen's ducks becomes deceased. The Royal Ducks reside in a pond in St. James Park, a location convenient for sharing the carriages, horses, drums, soldiers, and large hats used for other ceremonies. Politicians recognize the role of State funerals as paramount in keeping the populace satisfied and entertained. It's all that's left to unify the country. To be fair, the 91.1% has some concerns other than ceremonies. When the unions cut of the public water supply, they took umbrage when it came time to make tea. They remember Thatcher favorably for getting the water back on. CostMy opponent quibbles about the minor costs of an occasional State funeral. Five million pounds sounds like a lot of money when it's taken out of context, but consider that the National Health Service consumes that much money roughly every 47 seconds, and there is no fun in any of that expenditure. The trivial cost is outweighed by the universal benefits. the orgasmic joy brought to socialists alone makes it worthwhile. Pros sources and his further argumentsPro provides a list of sources that certify beyond doubt that the socialists who hate Lady Thatcher indeed hate her. All agree that she was a monumental figure in post-War British history, and all monumental figures garner praise and hatred. The Guardian hates her, as we might have guessed, while the Mail honors her:"Lady Thatcher is - and will always remain - a major figure to supporters and opponents alike. Not only did she transform Britain's economy and culture. Her resolve won her admirers among the people of the former Soviet Empire, whom she helped liberate. Her courage and single-mindedness likewise made her a legend in the United States. There is not a country in the world where her name is not still recognised. " . http://www.dailymail.co.uk... ". .. Anyone aged 50 or over was brought up in the shadow of trade union dominance. We remember studying for exams by candlelight because of strike action. We remember the three-day week, rubbish uncollected on the streets, bodies unburied, newspapers which often failed to come out, and riots in the streets. In truth, Britain was close to becoming a Third World state - mired in moral and physical squalor. Almost everyone assumed that economic and social collapse was inevitable. There was serious talk of private armies and military coups. Civil servants were taught that their role was limited to the management of national decline. . .. . But it is a truth universally recognised, even inside the Labour Party, that without union reform, Britain could never have recovered its economic dynamism or enjoyed the prosperity of the last 20 years. Margaret Thatcher truly transformed this country's fortune and, for that, we should all still be eternally grateful today. " [ . http://www.dailymail.co.uk... ] In terms of being simultaneously loved and reviled, Lincoln presents a comparable example in U. S. history. Perhaps no American president has been so thoroughly and demonstrably hated. A hundred fifty years later, the hatred is far from gone. [. http://hdl.handle.net...] Pro cites the specific lose of jobs in heavy industry, which translates mainly to coal mining. The coal industry was nationalized after WWII, and production soon peaked and then declined starting in 1956, long before Thatcher came to power. Thatcher poured in million of pounds trying to revitalize mining, but the decline could not be reversed. Thatcher ended the vast welfare state that the industry had become. Pro's argues ". .. Thatcher was bad for [mining town] Sheffield ergo she was bad. Never mind the rest of the country. Never mind the GDP growth of 23 percent or the increase in the median wage of 25 percent during her time in office. For most people the Thatcher years were ones of prosperity. That’s why she regularly tops polls of most popular Prime Ministers. " [. http://www.thecommentator.com...]You can tell from even a casual reading of Pro's case that there is really nothing he wants more that a Thatcher State funeral, lest he be otherwise become morose and dispirited. We don't want Pro to lose his vitality.