>>For those celebrating, instead of dancing on her grave why not criticise the Iron Lady for the actual details of what she did to the country, not because she didn’t represent your specific interests.>>

Thatcher hatred has long been the British left's thought substitute.

The Guardian especially has published three or more hate Maggie pieces every day since her death.

But what to do now?

No problem.

Tony Blair hate is the British left's new thought substitute.

Bit like Gillard hate is the Australian right's thought substitute.

"Bit like Gillard hate is the Australian right's thought substitute."

By setting out to govern for all and then successfully governing in the national interest , Bob Hawke won the respect of the majority of voters. He is a Labor role model that Julia Gillard wisely could have emulated.

Sadly, Julia Gillard was too one-eyed ( or should that be pig-headed) to appreciate this. Instead, she chose to return to the pre-Hawke Labor era by waging class warfare, which not surprisingly is alienating the majority of voters.

Raycom

Just to be clear

I am no fan of Gillard's. I think in many way's she has been extraordinarily inept.

But I do not hate her - some of the comments go on as if she were the devil incarnate.

The fact that Gillard is a bad PM does not mean Abbott will be a good one.

As matter stand now I think it's a toss-up. I have a mild preference for the Libs but I shall not celebrate if they win; nor shall I mourn if they lose.

And I stand by my statement. For many on the right Gilard-hate is a substitute for thought.

Steven one thing is for sure, Abbott is bound to look very good, in comparison to Gillard & Rudd. That will be the case even if he is a complete no hoper.

When it comes to Maggy, her funeral, if reports are true, has said it all. The big promotion of the left to go out a spoil it has been shown for what it was. A small hate group, with so few turning up to be hard to even find.

The real feeling for the lady was displayed all the way. The silent majority has again displayed itself, if just for a moment.

our country would be a lot more unified had Thatchter ruled here and stopped corrupt union officials hijacking the Labour party and spending cleaners money on prostitutes. The hypocrites in the union even bring people out here on 457 visas to help corrupt and divide our nation more.

'Thatcher had to be loyal either to the majority of voters who happened to support here, or to the minority who voted for someone else.'

The problem with statement is that it is not a reflection of how people voted. Margaret Thatcher didnt have a majority voting for her.

In 1979 her party got 44% of the vote, in 1983 42% of the vote, and in 1987 43% of the vote. At no time did the majority of people vote for her or her party. The majority was in seats which didn;t reflect the popular vote. But that's life - still, you should get your facts correct.

Hooray for the Guardian and the cartooists Steve Bell & Martin Rowson say I.
The cartoonists in particular are performing the necessary role/function of Court Jester puncturing the wall of right-wing "conservative" poltical correctness associated with this event. Describing the grotesque nature of it all and how the "emperor" and all of his/her slavishly dutiful acolytes really do not have any clothes.

Phil Matimein

It’s extremely rare for any party in a UK general election to get an outright majority of votes – no government since the 19th century has done that. Even the Labour landslide of 1945 secured only 48.1% of the vote. Occasionally a government has won more seats than the second-placed party with fewer votes, but it’s pretty rare (Conservatives in 1951, Labour in 1974). Thatcher won all her elections as PM, though you're right, she never won an outright majority.

In general I agree with Philip that the tendency in recent years is for party leaders to be hated far more than their records deserve. This seems to be the case in Australia as well as the UK and the USA. Reagan, Clinton and the Bushes, Cameron and Blair, Keating, Howard and Gillard have been detested in a way that seems visceral and mindless, out of proportion to their faults, which are admittedly many.

I also agree that genuine and interesting leaders are likely to be controversial and divisive – Churchill, Hawke and Keating, and Howard (for all his “relaxed and comfortable” ambitions) put people’s backs up because they tried to change things, and succeeded.

Thatcher, though, I think is an exception. I lived in the UK for most of the Thatcher years. She deserved to be loathed, not because she was divisive (though she was), but because she was a vindictive practitioner of class war who deliberately destroyed sections of British industry and the communities that relied on them. She instituted a new and even more ugly brand of crony capitalism in place of the comfortable elitism of the British establishment (who loathed her almost as much as the left), and virtually gave away public assets to buy votes. She took the country into a war that would have been unnecessary if the Foreign Office and security forces were half competent, fuelling militaristic populist sentiment to boost her position from the most unpopular post-war Prime Minister to a comfortable election win in 1982.