Petition for Thatcher's state funeral to be privatised

[Lateralthinking1]

I'd be delighted with a sad little affair at the local crem in the pouring rain ......... with music by the Smiths

Girlfriend in a Coma?

[Pilchardman]

Could this mean that the petition isn't valid or would a ceremonial funeral still be an issue that is the responsibility of the government? As this is becoming hazier, I predict that the petition will be removed.

Diana's funeral didn't have a parliamentary motion; it was arranged between Downing Street, the Royals and the Spencers. But there's no reason why Thatcher's wouldn't get a parliamentary motion carried, she has admirers in every party. Furthermore, lying in state need not be part of the deal. Did you think that made anything hazier? It's Baroness Thatcher's wish that this won't happen, but she is keen on a state funeral, by all accounts. (Indeed some reports suggest it was she who set the ball rolling).

The existence of the petition has nothing to do with whether a motion for a state funeral is likely to be carried, nor has it anything to do with her lying in state, nor indeed (as some seem to have suggested) with her still being alive.

[Pilchardman]

14,022 now.

[Lateralthinking1]

I may be wrong here but I think a state funeral requires a motion or vote in Parliament whereas a ceremonial funeral does not. Lying in state does not necessarily have to be a part of a state funeral.

So if Mrs Thatcher would like a state funeral, albeit one that does not involve lying in state, then a motion or vote is needed. But if the Mail is correct in stating that she wants a ceremonial funeral, formal action in the House by Government, or Parliament, to effect one may be optional.

Whether the scope for an optional vote or motion on a specific matter constitutes "a responsibility of Government" I am not sure but on paper that looks doubtful. And in that case, there may be an argument that the petition is invalid for petitions should be ruled out if they concern matters that are not the responsibility of Government.

[Pilchardman]

I may be wrong here but I think a state funeral requires a motion or vote in Parliament whereas a ceremonial funeral does not. Lying in state does not necessarily have to be a part of a state funeral.

That is correct.

Whether the scope for an optional vote or motion on a specific matter constitutes "a responsibility of Government" I am not sure but on paper that looks doubtful. And in that case, there may be an argument that the petition is invalid for petitions should be ruled out if they concern matters that are not the responsibility of Government.

I'm not sure what you're arguing here. State funerals are a responsibility of government. A ceremonial funeral would also be the responsibility of government. It is, however, my understanding that a) Baroness Thatcher wishes a state funeral, and b) the Cabinet Office is planning one. (Indeed, we were told recently that the previous government were also planning one for her, and that the plans had the codename Iron Bridge).

[Stillhomewardbound]

I'm not sure if it has been linked to already but Peter Oborne the Torygraph provides this very balanced peace on the issue:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peteroborne/100125535/lady-thatcher-deserves-every-honour-%E2%80%93-apart-from-this-one/

Peronally, if such a proposal was passed I would have no option but to head to procession route and turn my back on the cortege as it passed by.

[MrGongGong]

Peronally, if such a proposal was passed I would have no option but to head to procession route and turn my back on the cortege as it passed by.

In the style of Jarvis I hope

[Pilchardman]

Mr Skelton posted that Telegraph piece earlier, Stillhomewardbound.

[Lateralthinking1]

I'm not sure what you're arguing here. State funerals are a responsibility of government. A ceremonial funeral would also be the responsibility of government. It is, however, my understanding that a) Baroness Thatcher wishes a state funeral, and b) the Cabinet Office is planning one. (Indeed, we were told recently that the previous government were also planning one for her, and that the plans had the codename Iron Bridge).

Well, I was going by earlier comments about the Mail having suggested it would be ceremonial. That isn't the case but we may have had some confusion about terminology in regard to funerals not involving lying in state. The Mail confirms that "plans are in place to honour Baroness Thatcher with a state funeral....a Parliamentary motion will be needed to categorise the ceremony as a full state funeral. Otherwise it will be classified as a ceremonial funeral, like those for Princess Diana and the Queen Mother."

I accept that this means in the circumstances that the event is a responsibility of Government and hence the petition is currently valid. I am also becoming less squeamish about the discussion seeing that much of this seems to have been requested, characteristically, by Baroness Thatcher herself. I am though somewhat concerned that the convention of state funerals appears here to be taking second place to the cult of personality.

It is my understanding that people are usually invited to have a state funeral. Perhaps this was indeed the case here for it has been reported that Harriet Harman was actively involved in the preparations before the general election. Still it isn't entirely clear. But, more significantly, here is why the Queen Mother was determined not to have a state funeral. In a nutshell, she wasn't a monarch - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1906658.stm.

By all accounts, these non Royals all had a full state funeral: Admiral Robert Blake (1657), Sir Isaac Newton (1727), The Viscount Nelson (1806), Duke of Wellington (1852), The Viscount Palmerston (1865), William Gladstone (1898), The Earl Roberts of Kandahar (1914), The Earl Haig (1928), The Lord Carson (1935), Sir Winston Churchill (1965). It therefore really does seem very woolly.

But I can't get too worked up about it. When it comes to the senior levels, they do whatever suits. Steadfastly atheist North Korea is tonight declaring on television that their Dear Leader was "born of Heaven". MT was the first woman Prime Minister and for that reason alone a state funeral might be justifiable. In fact, I will approach it in that positive light. Others can argue over it.

[ahinton]

I'd be delighted with a sad little affair at the local crem in the pouring rain ......... with music by the Smiths

I presume you to mean the Smith Quartet?

[MrGongGong]

I presume you to mean the Smith Quartet?

Of course

[Pilchardman]

The Lord Carson (1935)

Indeed. The same Carson who founded the UVF.

The state will have state funerals for whomsoever it pleases. Baroness Thatcher is a strong advocate of privatisation. It is only fitting that hers is privately funded.

[Anna]

I don't understand this. She is a frail old women with Altzheimers.

I would far rather dance on the grave of Tony Blair, if I were inclined to dance on graves, which I am not. For he did so much damage, and look at him now, with his property portfolio, what a Socialist that we can all aspire to follow!

[Pilchardman]

"Socialist"? Blair?

Anyway, what is all this about dancing on Thatcher's grave? Is her proposed state funeral out of bounds for discussion? Why? It's been in the papers, it is being discussed by government (this one and that last lot), it is something she herself has asked to be considered.

For what it's worth, all I've done on this thread as regards Baroness Thatcher is champion a petition to privatise her proposed state funeral. Blair, on the other hand, I have suggested should be given a state funeral without any need for his having died first. And yet nobody has accused me of bad taste in that respect, dancing on his grave, or being "obsessed". If there is any bias, it is because I have been more circumspect about Baroness Thatcher.

This is a well-known psychological effect. Where bias is the norm, anything even remotely redressing that balance is itself seen as bias! For example, teachers always give boys more attention in class, so much so that (assuming 50/50 male/female numbers) if they give girls 40% of their time that is seen as bias towards the girls. And even the girls will perceive it that way!

[french frank]

Could this mean that the petition isn't valid or would a ceremonial funeral still be an issue that is the responsibility of the government? As this is becoming hazier, I predict that the petition will be removed.

The issue could be the same as for the wedding of William and Kate. Not an official state occasion, but it still had to be policed &c on the grounds that there were a lot of people around.

The petition is neither 'valid' nor 'invalid' as far as I can see. No decision has been made yet since there has been no parliamentary vote. The petition is merely testing public opinion. Whether that will affect what happens is another matter. A Wilsonian-type funeral would probably be the best decision.