Petition for Thatcher's state funeral to be privatised

[Chris Newman]

Being Prime Minister should never be an automatic reason for a state funeral. As far as I am concerned no PM has deserved one since Churchill. Maggie disqualifies herself for selling the family silver. That most of our Gas, Electricty and Transport is owned by foreigners is an inditement of everything that the woman ever stood for. That was COMPLETE AND UTTER TREASON and she should have been put in the Tower of London long ago. Her "rejoice" moment was just a pathetic attempt to save herself when things were politically going very badly. Blair was equally treasonable and useless. I would be very happy to see a few Singers, Actors, Conductors and Sportsmen given the honour of State Funerals. That Sir Adrian Boult, Benjamin Britten or Michael Tippett were not given them is disgraceful. Maybe we should give them to holders of the Order of Merit. That might solve the silly squabbling about who gets them.

[teamsaint]

so, all in all, the silliest idea since the last silly idea.

However, I am expecting to be given an extra day off as its soooooooo important that we mark the occasion , so that will be a bonus.

Funny isn't it, the folks at the top, not content with being rich, powerful and lauded, seem obsessed with the idea that we all turn out to observe in their marriage/funeral/walkabout/xmas day trip to church or whatever.

I think they must be very insecure. Or something !!

[ahinton]

I don't know exactly what Margaret Thatcher is expecting these days but, given that I understand that she's now short of a marble or three and is as frail as others have mentioned in this thread, I doubt that it's all that much, really, in which case much of this discussion is down to others.

Perhaps Elliott Carter should be given a state funeral in New York; if this were to be agreed in advance, however and if teamsaint were a citizen of New York State, I suspect that the wait for that day off would be a long one indeed - and, who knows when or even if such a funeral would take place?...

[Pilchardman]

16,014.

[Dave2002]

Perhaps she'll peg it after the Queen's Jubilee and just before the Olympics, thus being as tiresome in death as she was in life. We are still living in the wreckage of her so called achievements.

Achievements?

What, pray, do you think they are/were?

I'll come back with my own list, perhaps, later.

Best wishes and Happy Christmas - to you, and all of us!

Dave

[ahinton]

16,014.

OK, so it groans on for abit, but has it occurred to you that, even were it to achieve its tally of 100,000 signatories some time next year, a "debate" on the subject in Parliament would not necessarily result in a decision that is immune to challenge in another place or that might not in any case accord to your own wishes in the matter, whatever they may be? Frankly, I think that, irrespective of the seriousness or otherwise of the motives of Mr Scott Morgan (who is presumably not an Englishman) that initiated this petition, it's pretty irresponsible to risk (if indeed it does so) the inevitable waste of valuable Parliamentary time with something of this nature when there are so many truly grave issues for Parliament to address - but let's examine this more closely. The wording of the petition is:

Thatcher state funeral to be privatised

Responsible department: Cabinet Office

In keeping with the great lady's legacy, Margaret Thatcher's state funeral should be funded and managed by the private sector to offer the best value and choice for end users and other stakeholders. The undersigned believe that the legacy of the former PM deserves nothing less and that offering this unique opportunity is an ideal way to cut government expense and further prove the merits of liberalised economics Baroness Thatcher spearheaded.

Firstly, the instigator seeks to attract at least 100,000 signatories who agree that Margaret Thatcher is a great (if not an iron) lady and whose eminently deserving legacy is of sufficient significance to merit her being given a state funeral; it omits, however, to define a "state funeral" in the context concerned.

Secondly, its reference to the commendability of the notion that such an event be privately funded and managed - insofar as it is in any case compatible with the idea of a "state funeral" in the first place - fails fully to address the practicalities attaching thereto. If her funeral is indeed to be a "state" one that's nevertheless funded other than by the taxpayer, its only "state" aspect would presumably be the conferring of an obligation upon the Cabinet Office to assume sole charge over the delegation of responsibility for its funding and management rather than exempt itself from all responsibilities in the matter so, if anything major (sorry!) goes awry, the government might still get into trouble for inappropriate delegation and the fallout of that would, as always, devolve onto the taxpayer who would then ultimately have funded at least some part of the exercise after all, even if only on an indirect basis. Mindful of this fact, the government of the day would be wise not to delegate that funding and management responsibility to an irresponsibly risk-taking bank that might ultimately be taken into part public ownership, as this would then defeat the object altogether.

Thirdly, there is the risk that her family might disapprove of such delegation arrangements and, if the consequent dispute between the family and the Cabinet Office proved not to be amenable to resolution, the question would then arise as to the family's entitlement or otherwise to refuse permission for such a state funeral and take responsibility for its funding and management themselves; in such circumstances, if the family's wishes were indeed to be paramount, how inept would such a spat and its outcome make the government of the day look?

Fourthly, the petition text omits clarification as to the intended meaning in this particular instance of "the best value and choice for end users and other stakeholders"; not only does this raise but leave unanswered the question of the identity of those "stakeholders" or indeed how they acquired such "stakeholder" status in the matter, it also refers to "choice" without declaring whose "choice" it might be or who should offer it to whom (presumably we're once again considering the idea of an autonomous Cabinet Office decision, though this is not specified); to cap it all, it presents the somewhat bizarre concept of the "end user" without offering so much as a clue who the "end user" of a funeral, state or otherwise, might be.

Lastly, the petition text refers to "this unique opportunity" as "an ideal way to cut government expense and further prove the merits of liberalised economics [that] Baroness Thatcher spearheaded"; aside from the obvious fact that any such economics that Margaret Thatcher might be alleged to have "spearheaded" came about before she was made a baroness, "government expense" could surely be "cut" more efficiently again by rejecting the petitioner's evident desire for Margaret Thatcher to be given a "state funeral", in which case the state would have had no involvement in either its funding or the cost of its management and the very principle enshrined in the petition is thereby exposed as self-defeating.

In the light of the above, the apparent fact that this petition has nevertheless attracted more than 16,000 signatures to date might arguably appear to be strongly suggestive of the likelihood that this number of people has been prepared to sign the petition without giving so much as a moment's thought to any of the above, which is hardly an indicator of kind of intelligence and responsibility that one might reasonably assume to be the intended prerequisites for the participation of the electorate in such petitionings; indeed, the exercise itself might even come to bite its instigator in his own back were its principal outcome to be the ultimate discrediting of the recently introduced policy that determines that the subject of any petition to Parliament which attracts more than 100,000 signatures must be debated therein.

On the other hand, if the exercise was intended merely as a joke, 16,000+ people have either fallen for it or would appear to share the particularly wacky sense of humour that prompted its instigator to launch it - and 1 April is still almost 100 days away!...

[Mr Pee]

OK, so it groans on for abit, but has it occurred to you that, even were it to achieve its tally of 100,000 signatories some time next year, a "debate" on the subject in Parliament would not necessarily result in a decision that is immune to challenge in another place or that might not accord to your own wishes in the matter? Frankly, I think that, irrespective of the seriousness or otherwise of the motives of whoever it was that initiated this petition, it's pretty irresponsible to risk (if indeed it does so) the waste of valuable Parliamentary time with something of this nature when there are so many truly grave issues for Parliament to address.

[Pilchardman]

has it occurred to you that, even were it to achieve its tally of 100,000 signatories some time next year, a "debate" on the subject in Parliament would not necessarily result in a decision that is immune to challenge in another place or that might not accord to your own wishes in the matter?

Of course it's occurred to me. In fact, I'll make a prediction: even if the petition ever reaches 100, 000, the State Funeral of Baroness Thatcher will not be privatised. All that Parliament has agreed to do about petitions reaching 100, 000 is debate the issue, not accede to the petition's demands.

That isn't the point of this petition, as I'm sure you're well aware. The point is first to question why the public should pay for the funeral of such a divisive figure, and secondly to ask just how deep Thatcher's (and those who admire her) convictions go on liberalised markets. Are such measures fine for others, but not for themselves?

[gurnemanz]

On the World At One the other day Peter Lilley dismissed opponents of a Thatcher state funeral as "a rump of people in the intelligentsia". I would have thought it is quite a big rump containing plenty of non-members of the intelligentsia.

http://audioboo.fm/boos/599222-when-she-dies-should-baroness-thatcher-have-a-state-funeral-peter-oborne-and-peter-lilley-debate-the-world-at-one-bbc-radio-4#t=5m32s

[ahinton]

Of course it's occurred to me.

Well, that's a relief!

In fact, I'll make a prediction: even if the petition ever reaches 100,000, the State Funeral of Baroness Thatcher will not be privatised. All that Parliament has agreed to do about petitions reaching 100,000 is debate the issue, not accede to the petition's demands.

...which is precisely what I wrote above - but, as is also implicit in what I wrote, you appear prepared to share with the instigator of the petition a perception that there is no requirement to define a privately funded and managed state funeral in the sense that the "state" aspect of one remains unclear if the state is neither to fund nor to manage it.

That isn't the point of this petition, as I'm sure you're well aware. The point is first to question why the public should pay for the funeral of such a divisive figure, and secondly to ask just how deep Thatcher's (and those who admire her) convictions go on liberalised markets. Are such measures fine for others, but not for themselves?

No. However, the admission of this fact alone contributes nothing towards the revelation of a serious point to this petition, since no argument has been presented therein as to how a state funeral could be a state funeral if it's to be privately funded and managed; in the absence of such clarification, the two notions remain incompatible. Were the petition instead to have sought to dispute that, as you write, "the public should pay for the funeral of such a divisive figure" - particularly when it has yet to be called upon to do so - it would have been far clearer and more credible and possibly even have attracted more signatures by now. As to your second alleged "point" of the petition, it should be remembered that this a a petition to Parliament and not to Margaret Thatcher and her admirers and, as such, it is as technically impossible as it would be undemocratically appropriate for the convictions of certain members of the electorate to be debated in Parliament; such a debate, which would accordingly be without merit and unamenable to ratifiable conclusion, might well attract the understandable ire and chagrin of the electorate over the crass irresponsibility that would have enabled the wasting of Parliamentary time to the detriment of debate on the graver and more vital issues that it elects and funds the government of the day to address.

[John Skelton]

the Margaret Thatcher

Is that some kind of title she's been awarded? Or perhaps it's a pub in Chingford.

[Mr Pee]

Well, that's a relief!


...which is precisely what I wrote above - but, as is also implicit in what I wrote, you appear prepared to share with the instigator of the petition a perception that there is no requirement to define a privately funded and managed state funeral in the sense that the "state" aspect of one remains unclear if the state is neither to fund nor to manage it.


No. However, the admission of this fact alone contributes nothing towards the revelation of a serious point to this petition, since no argument has been presented therein as to how a state funeral could be a state funeral if it's to be privately funded and managed; in the absence of such clarification, the two notions remain incompatible. Were the petition instead to have sought to dispute that, as you write, "the public should pay for the funeral of such a divisive figure" - particularly when it has yet to be called upon to do so - it would have been far clearer and more credible and possibly even have attracted more signatures by now. As to your second alleged "point" of the petition, it should be remembered that this a a petition to Parliament and not to the Margaret Thatcher and her admirers and, as such, it is as technically impossible as it would be undemocratically appropriate for the convictions of certain members of the electorate to be debated in Parliament; such a debate, which would accordingly be without merit and unamenable to ratifiable conclusion, might well attract the understandable ire and chagrin of the electorate over the crass irresponsibility that would have enabled the wasting of Parliamentary time to the detriment of debate on the graver and more vital issues that it elects and funds the government of the day to address.

A Hinton- come on, own up. You're really a lawyer, aren't you??

[teamsaint]

perhaps there is room for compromise here.
Give her a state funeral,(privatised or not) but have it in somewhere close to her heart , lets think, Oh, I don't know, what about Castleford or Ashington ?

[Mr Pee]

perhaps there is room for compromise here.
Give her a state funeral,(privatised or not) but have it in somewhere close to her heart , lets think, Oh, I don't know, what about Castleford or Ashington ?

The problem with giving Margaret Thatcher a state funeral has been clearly illustrated by this thread. The petty, cheap, predictable sniping from the left, such as the comment above, would be just the tip of the iceberg. I really don't know why you people can't just move on. She left office over 20 years ago for goodness sake.

Get over it.

[Pilchardman]

...which is precisely what I wrote above

in your edit, 5 mins after my post.

- but you appear prepared to share with the instigator of the petition a perception that there is no requirement to define a privately funded and managed state funeral

There will be no privately funded and managed state funeral. Not for The Margaret Thatcher nor for anyone else.

I thought that was understood from the very beginning?