Yesterday was the funeral of Lady Margaret Thatcher, Britain's "iron lady", first female prime minister and an incredibly strong-minded politician.
Thatcher's solid and unwavering political choices, also known as "Thatcherism" earned her nicknames such as "Thatcher Thatcher The Milk Snatcher"- supporting the fact that it is of great awareness that her policies were majorly contraversial, leading to extreme unpopularity; especially amongst the working class of Britain.
Although some may argue that Thatcher saved Britain economically and had a sense of control that today's politicians lack, many people were not in favour of her "balls of steel" based choices such as closure of many mines and factories resulting in unemployment and poverty, the discontinuation of milk for children in primary schools and nurseries which had helped families on a lower income, privatising companies, selling council houses (resulting in a shortage) and many more.
However, should the cost of the funeral really have been funded by the tax payer? At a steep amount of around £10m, surely Britain is in need of other essentials rather than the funeral of a Politician who surely had enough savings to pay for it herself?
As stated in an article in the Guardian, the funeral cost could have funded the wages of 322 nurses for a year, 272 secondary school teachers for a year, 320 fire officers for a year, 269 paramedics for a year, 177,777 jobseekers' allowance claimants and 44 libraries.
What are your thoughts? comment below!
certainly not!!!!!! family or her right wing friends should have coughed up the bill. or perhaps the unemployed miners could have all chipped in..... ha! what a joke.
ReplyDeleteNo. It isn't the duty of tax payers to spend their hard earned money on such things. But she was very powerful at one point so the Government would pay for their own.
ReplyDelete