Further reflections on the funeral

[Serial_Apologist]

It is certain that Mark Thatcher is an odious individual. I'm old enough to remember all those news headlines about his shenanigans and they were actually a shocking indictment of him - shocking. However, he did NOT serve as Prime Minister and I'm sure there are many of us who have children whose behaviour has made us feel ashamed at one time or another.

Mark Thatcher is a prime product of a family whose matriarch ran the national economy like, in her own words, a household budget - not to mention as well, a prime example of those "family values" so espoused by her devoted successor.

[Mr Pee]

It was utterly spooky to hear (as clearly I couldn't see) that ghoulish parade pass by with its muffled drums and a militaristic pomp so out of kilter with our democratic process.

How exactly is it out of kilter with our democratic process? The other side of that very "militaristic pomp" played a crucial part in ensuring that we still live in a society that allows you to make your protest.

[Richard Barrett]

Not sure I would read to much into the apparent discrepancy between home and overseas commission fees. I would suspect that the UK composers that get overseas commissions are significantly more established than the UK average and would therefore attract better paid commissions.

That may well be, but (without releasing my accounts!) I do find that non-UK commissions are significantly better-paid, though not often by a factor of more than two.

[Ian]

That may well be, but (without releasing my accounts!) I do find that non-UK commissions are significantly better-paid, though not often by a factor of more than two.

Sure, it's not unusual for UK artists of all types to have greater success overseas - as indeed many overseas artists find greater success here.

[Tarantella]

plenty of the workforce in the UK are nowadays expected to work very long hours, for very modest pay, in order that they can put a VERY expensive roof over their heads.
Meantime Directors pay is skyrocketing, and there is(in my experience) rapidly diminishing support for those unfairly dismissed.

It's called the "pendulum effect" - sleep now, pay later. But I totally agree about Director's fees and the outrageous, immoral nature of these. Time for some collective sanctions and for politicians not to keep "turning".

The whole issue is complex and requires complex decisions, but bashing somebody who was strong and who belonged to a collective government which was responsible for making hard decisions is not the answer. I well remember British films of the 50's and 60's that celebrated and/or lampooned union power and excesses. I never thought any of it was funny, and I still don't.

[Stillhomewardbound]

How exactly is it out of kilter with our democratic process? The other side of that very "militaristic pomp" played a crucial part in ensuring that we still live in a society that allows you to make your protest.

Here's how:

The huge error with this state funeral business is the manner in which it goes so much against the grain of our constitutional and democratic process. The monarch and her family we retain as ceremonial symbols of power. We place them above the fray of everyday politics, as unifying figures that all elements of society can acknowledge. However, all politicians, even our premiers, are figures that serve by our choosing. They are one of us that we have entrusted with out governance, but even in death, no matter how great their achievements, they return to the civilian fold and the manner of their passing ought to reflect that. So, why did that thinking not apply to Winston Churchill, you might ask? Well, two reasons. Firstly, he led Britain through a horrible war that lasted six years. Think about it, six years. The Falklands campaign lasted all of six weeks, thereabouts. Secondly, he led a national government and stood as a figure of unification. Indeed, immediately off the back of the war he was de-selected and returned to the ranks, but still, come his passing and given his record of national leadership, he was sufficiently installed in the public psyche as to warrant his state funeral. There wasn't even the remotest dispute about that at the time. However, neither point can remotely bear comparison with the controversial and divisive figure that was Margaret Thatcher. Let her funeral proceed with the decorum and respect befitting any grandmother in their ninth decade, and, by all means, let the plaudits for her years of public service ring true, but was she not also made of flesh and were her human frailties all too clear for us to see? Of course they were, so her obsequies ought to have reflected that and no more.

[Richard Barrett]

Sure, it's not unusual for UK artists of all types to have greater success overseas

I'm trying to make a direct comparison between commission fees in different countries, not "success". (For what it's worth, there are considerably more UK plays on my Soundcloud page (which admittedly has only been up for just over a week) than those for any other country, which might be considered a rough guide to how much the music is appreciated in different parts of the world.)

Anyway, let's not get bogged down in minutiae - I think it's pretty clear that for example institutional funding for music in Germany, where I live now, is way in excess of that in the UK (1998 figures which are the closest I could find are 0.36% of GDP as opposed to 0.19%), and I am sure the difference has increased since the 1980s - in 2012 the German federal culture budget increased by 8% in the context of a decrease of 3.1% in the overall federal budget. And I would say this is another indicator of what I called institutional philistinism in the UK, which I believe really started in earnest and in an ideological way during the Thatcher years, when the arts (together with trade unions, the GLC and so on) were seen by government as a focus of dissent which therefore needed to be "brought down to size".

[Beef Oven]

Reflections indeed on a fiiting day.

Respected by many, loved and disliked in equal measures by some, the funeral of Margaret Thatcher was a fitting ceremony to mark the passing of a great life and an end to a chapter of Britain's history.

Her fans got the day they knew she deserved, and her detractors had a target for their ventilations, and all can go back to what they were doing before.

I understand the music was good too!

RIP Maggie Thatcher


.

[scottycelt]

I'm disturbed by the level of invective which has surrounded the death of this ex PM. I worked in London in the early 1970's and I, along with most other Australians who worked there, was appalled by the working practices. They all wanted to employ Australians because we had a work ethic. I would work until 11am and then was told, "stop working so hard...you're showing us up...time for a break". Very little work was done (and I worked for Shell, a large company, in the office). Next job, same thing. Nobody was doing anything and, from what I could tell, this was a cultural 'entitlement'. This puts very strongly into context some of the reasons why the Thatcher government did what it did. And to say the UK is now a financial economy etc. - most of the West is these days because the Asians are prepared to work for nothing. This is the new 21st century economic reality and the rest of the world isn't going to continue to support unionized Western workforces, for good or ill.

That's the society I remember as well, and it was much the same at my place of work. The country was very much in the grip of a few very powerful unions. Inflation was rampant, unofficial and official strikes commonplace. A decade before Thatcher became PM a Labour Minister called Barbara Castle ... yes, that other deceased lady the preening 'Gorgeous' George Galloway eulogised the other day ... had a parliamentary White Paper set-up called in 'In Place of Strife' in order to tackle the unions. Though it was defeated by some of her colleagues and, sadly, never saw the light of day, it was actually tougher than the subsequent Tory laws and might have prevented much of what happened in the '70s and even Thatcherism itself. After all, these laws were really only bringing the UK into line with our European neighbours, with whom we have to compete. It could easily be argued that those responsible for Margaret Thatcher gaining power were the trade unions themselves.

I share your gross dislike of the invective. I am appalled that some ... however few in number ... can chant as they did at a passing coffin and burn effigies at celebratory parties elsewhere. I was going to use a word which accurately sums up such behaviour but it has been deemed 'unhelpful' by some so little point in using it here. Those who 'turned their backs' in silence were perfectly at liberty to do so but I can't see why they just couldn't stay away from the event. Imo, a funeral is the least appropriate place for a demonstration. In any case, it was apparently Gordon Brown who was mainly responsible for pre-organising Thatcher's funeral, not these awful Tories.

Frankly, it's a bit of a relief it's all now behind us ...

[An_Inspector_Calls]

So what you're saying is that music and the other arts are safe in the hands of governments like Thatcher's and Cameron's.

No, I'm saying no such thing. I'm not sure any arts funding can ever be safe, private or public. And I'm not aware of much to chose between left and right wing governments.

My phrase "institutional philistinism" in no way describes the present situation in UK culture, is that right?

Yes, that is correct because I can't see the evidence for it.

Thinking about your reference to the levels of UK and non UK commissioning (and noting Ian's comments) I would comment that the survey is very small to draw any firm conclusions about the significance of that fact. And there's also another logic to the observation which is that it is the payment per commission they report, the commissions range from single songs (or even songs by-the-minute) all the way to symphonic pieces, and I'd be surprised if commissioning of single songs attracted much in the way of overseas commissions. In short, UK commissions will cover both large scale and the bread-and-butter work, the overseas commissions will tend toward the big-league stuff.

[Tarantella]

That's the society I remember as well, and it was much the same at my place of work. The country was very much in the grip of a few very powerful unions. Inflation was rampant, unofficial and official strikes commonplace. A decade before Thatcher became PM a Labour Minister called Barbara Castle ... yes, that other deceased lady the preening 'Gorgeous' George Galloway eulogised the other day ... had a parliamentary White Paper set-up called in 'In Place of Strife' in order to tackle the unions. Though it was defeated by some of her colleagues and, sadly, never saw the light of day, it was actually tougher than the subsequent Tory laws and might have prevented much of what happened in the '70s and even Thatcherism itself. After all, these laws were really only bringing the UK into line with our European neighbours, with whom we have to compete. It could easily be argued that those responsible for Margaret Thatcher gaining power were the trade unions themselves.

I share your gross dislike of the invective. I am appalled that some ... however few in number ... can chant as they did at a passing coffin and burn effigies at celebratory parties elsewhere. I was going to use a word which accurately sums up such behaviour but it has been deemed 'unhelpful' by some so little point in using it here. Those who 'turned their backs' in silence were perfectly at liberty to do so but I can't see why they just couldn't stay away from the event. Imo, a funeral is the least appropriate place for a demonstration. In any case, it was apparently Gordon Brown who was mainly responsible for pre-organising Thatcher's funeral, not these awful Tories.

Frankly, it's a bit of a relief it's all now behind us ...

I was very interested in your comments and reply to mine - thank you for them. As I said earlier, complex problems need complex solutions and I would think recent experiences the world over have shown that hatred definitely isn't the answer. I don't say Thatcher was perfect or always got it right: clearly that would be stupid, but she was but one person in a government which was re-elected 3 times by the constituency. That's a phenomenal achievement by any measure.

In Australia we have old class hatreds emerging in the polity and these are odious. I begin to think democracy doesn't work after all, but what is the alternative? Essentially, we call it 'democracy' but governments are always run by loud lobby groups, pressure groups and special interest advocates - whether this be the big end of town, the judiciary and immigration activists, or the political correctness army. The silent majority shuts up, pays taxes and 'likes' it.

[Richard Barrett]

A_I_C. you are of course correct in saying there's been little difference between right-wing and, er, slightly less right-wing governments since the 1980s in this regard. Although it might be noted that the Arts Council of Great Britain was inaugurated during the Attlee government (and initially chaired by John Maynard Keynes, which certainly shows the present repulsive incumbent in a suitably grotesque light), and massively expanded during the Wilson administration of 1964-70. Once Norman Tebbit started calling the Arts Council "elitist" and "politically biased" the stage was set for its gradual erosion.

Yes, that is correct because I can't see the evidence for it.

So how do you explain the appointment of Bazalgette? What could that be evidence of?

[Richard Barrett]

the funeral of Margaret Thatcher was a fitting ceremony to mark the passing of a great life and an end to a chapter of Britain's history

That's a matter of opinion of course. The "chapter" won't be over until Thatcherism is as dead as its perpetrator.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

So how do you explain the appointment of Bazalgette? What could that be evidence of?

Little evidence of anything as yet given he was appointed last September.

[Flosshilde]

It is certain that Mark Thatcher is an odious individual. I'm old enough to remember all those news headlines about his shenanigans and they were actually a shocking indictment of him - shocking. However, he did NOT serve as Prime Minister and I'm sure there are many of us who have children whose behaviour has made us feel ashamed at one time or another..

Others might have pointed this out already, but I don't think MT was in the least ashamed of Mark's activities. She actively promoted construction & arms dealing companies he was involved in during official visits to the middle east, & gained contracts (under the auspices of the government) for them. A mother helping her son, or corruption? Then there was the famous 'lost in the desert' episode, when government, or state, resources were used to find him. It wasn't until the failed armed coup in Africa that his activities became too embarrassing & he was effectively banished.