Further reflections on the funeral

[Anna]

Care to explain that? (en anglais, preferably!)...

Well, it's wot you said, innit? For once, dear ahinton, you were lost for words!

!!!
That said, blessèd are the lawmakers, for they - er - um - oh, me's lost for words at last...

[mercia]

I assume backs were turned at Mr Callaghan's funeral too
seeing as how he allowed the country to grind to a halt

[Dave2002]

I assume backs were turned at Mr Callaghan's funeral too
seeing as how he allowed the country to grind to a halt

Diferent times, different constraints, and at least he only lasted a few years instead of the miserably long time you know who managed. Tony B also managed to follow in you know who's footsteps and he and his fellows also outstayed their welcome. The 1980s were a depressingly long time for me. I really think we should follow the USA and have 4 year parliaments, and only 2 terms for each PM, but those who get to be in power will try to stop that happening. Cameron is trying for fixed length parliaments , but .. guess what ... he wants 5 years.

[Julien Sorel]

I assume backs were turned at Mr Callaghan's funeral too seeing as how he allowed the country to grind to a halt

Perhaps I missed something, but I thought Callaghan's funeral was a private matter - not the state (or ceremonial or whatever they are calling it) affair that's been decided on by a political clique at a cost of millions (10 million?), with an accompanying cast of Falklands Penguins, military, dignitaries, massed choirs etc.

If Thatcher's fans wanted to put on a do they should have paid for it themselves. At the weekend an opinion poll showed over 60% of those questioned didn't think public money should be used for this. It shouldn't. Nor should the assumption be made (a kind of emotional coup) that because some think we owe her respect everyone has to agree with that (which is what this public funeral effectively enforces).

So really your argument is irrrelevant.

[mercia]

oh, the 'protests' are about the expense, not policies, I see. my mistake.
paradoxically if the 'protesters' simply stayed away there would be no need for a large police presence, resulting in a less expensive 'event'

[MrGongGong]

oh, the 'protests' are about the expense, not policies, I see. my mistake.

[kernelbogey]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cartoon/2013/apr/16/steve-bell-on-margaret-thatcher-s-memorial-service

[Julien Sorel]

oh, the 'protests' are about the expense, not policies, I see. my mistake.
paradoxically if the 'protesters' simply stayed away there would be no need for a large police presence, resulting in a less expensive 'event'

No they aren't 'about' the expense only. They are about everyone, whatever they respect what Thatcher did, whether they feel about her 'legacy', being associated with a public act of commemoration. It's being done in the name of all of us. And while you might think that fine a great many people don't. Not just some people. Millions of people.

Thatcher's admirers want a big private funeral with lots of guests and paraphernalia, then that's their affair: they put it on. It shouldn't be happening in everyone's name.

There wouldn't be a need (sorry, 'need') for a large police presence if there wasn't a state or ceremonial funeral for Margaret Thatcher. You've got it the wrong way round . Simply staying away wouldn't register anything. People are correct to be angry. Because as that notorious left wing subversive Peter Oborne pointed out in The Daily Telegraph the public funeral shouldn't be happening.

Incidentally, the Arts Council made £11 million of what it called essential cuts yesterday (I mention this because I know members here are frightfully keen on all that arty stuff). Roughly the cost of today's propaganda exercise.

[MrGongGong]

So how many Arnold Bax Proms Concerts do you get for £11 million ?

I know it's the "kidney machines or opera" argument so beloved of those who want to remove subsidy all together ........ BUT
when we are supposedly "broke" it seems no expense spared for the Olympics or this charade.........

And we all know it won't be a patch on the spectacle of Kim Jong Il's last year....... dictatorships really know how to do mass events. The penalty for being a gnat's out of step being banishment, not just you, but your whole family ......... sometimes it seems that this is what is aspired to ! (NOT serious )

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Julien

Your repeated bleat about Thatcher admirers paying because, you presume, it's their minority interest falls flat on its face if you extend the same point to support for the arts.

[MrGongGong]

Julien

Your repeated bleat about Thatcher admirers paying because, you presume, it's their minority interest falls flat on its face if you extend the same point to support for the arts.

Nonsense

Thatcher and her supporters advocated that the private sector would run EVERYTHING better, private enterprise is GOOD and state funded things are BAD.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

In that case, all music events would be privately funded. But they weren't then and don't seem to be now.

[Julien Sorel]

Julien

Your repeated bleat about Thatcher admirers paying because, you presume, it's their minority interest falls flat on its face if you extend the same point to support for the arts.

I didn't say anything about Margaret Thatcher's funeral being a minority interest. I said that because it is a state or ceremonial funeral, run as a state occasion, we are all effectively included as mourners expressing respect whether we are and do or not. And it is not a small number of people who don't approve of that coercion. It's a widely held view. In other words, Margaret Thatcher's funeral and commemoration should not be something that is, effectively, done in all our names. Which is the point Peter Oborne made in his Daily Telegraph article.

You seem to have great difficulty understanding this message board's House Rules. Simple courtesy is all that's needed - "repeated bleat" is discourteous. Please try to behave yourself. Thanks.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Sorry I must have been confused by your repeated assertion of the numbers of objectors: 'a great many', 'millions of people'. Unfortunately, you'll just have to go along with what this democracy wants , but objecting on the basis of costs fails when the same argument is applied to any other minority interest such as the arts.

As for your pompous reference to courtesy (on this thread!), I'll follow your lead in the deleted thread where in a reply to one of my posts you gave me the discourtesy of deliberately misquoting and misrepresenting my position.

[Richard Barrett]

In that case, all music events would be privately funded. But they weren't then and don't seem to be now.

What you're ignoring here is that under Thatcher and subsequently there are far fewer events, and those that do occur are often on a smaller scale. Cuts were presented as a transfer from public to private funding, but of course there was no private funding in very many cases, because private funders (especially in times of "belt-tightening") will generally only support things that will give them some kind of return on the money they give out (which attitude is why they have all that money in the first place). So the shift was from public funding to no funding. The figures on this aren't difficult to come by if you're interested in getting the facts straight.