Further reflections on the funeral

[An_Inspector_Calls]

The figures on this aren't difficult to come by if you're interested in getting the facts straight.

OK. let's have the data then.

[Flosshilde]

I'll just be glad when it's over & the hagiolatry comes to an end.

[mercia]

the amount of public money that is wasted in my name, I could spend all year protesting, scurrying from government department to government department, council to council, hospital to hospital, royal palace to royal palace, new road to new road

[Richard Barrett]

OK. let's have the data then.

It's out there, go and find it for yourself!

[MrGongGong]

OK. let's have the data then.

Oh please not this again
You either think that we should have things or not
Without subsidy NO large opera, no BBC, no Orchestral music at the level we enjoy and so on and so on
without subsidy (to quote Mr Gubbay who should know the economics of these things ) NO "spectacular" 1812 etc at the Albert Hall and No Glydebourne as well (who do you think pays for those musicians to live the rest of the time ???) .......

but that's all a bit OT
What many of us object to is not so much the money (which we do object to as well) but the rewriting of history .........
Why not have a society (again) that places more emphasis on the well being of the least able to cope rather than pushing them in to the gutter ?
And we can see where much of this started to become part of the mainstream thinking
Nothing to do with Scargil VS Thatcher they BOTH "lost" or rather we ALL "lost"

[aeolium]

There's also the irony of the arch-advocate of privatisation having in effect a "nationalised" funeral rather than a private one. Compare this with the funeral of imo the greatest of British prime ministers, Clement Attlee, in the Church of the Templars with 150 mourners and no paraphernalia.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

It's out there, go and find it for yourself!

Why? it's your assertion, your claim that the data was easily come by:

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.

And there I was looking forward to some quantitative proof of your claim

Edit: PS. Reading the Oxford English Literary History Vo1 12 (sad, I know), last para of page 393 on progress in drama during the last century rather disproves your point. Your library can get you a copy.

Mr GG's last: no point addressing that to me, I agree with all your points.

[Resurrection Man]

Watching this sad and sombre occasion, as I type this, reminds me of just how exceptionally well we carry out these type of events. Fortunately [Deleted - ff] (many of whom were not even born when Baroness Thatcher was in power) are vastly outnumbered by the crowds of respectful onlookers gathered to honour this remarkable and very special lady. RIP Maggie.

[ahinton]

There's also the irony of the arch-advocate of privatisation having in effect a "nationalised" funeral rather than a private one. Compare this with the funeral of imo the greatest of British prime ministers, Clement Attlee, in the Church of the Templars with 150 mourners and no paraphernalia.

And there is the additional irony that those with high incomes who manage to avoid paying tax altogether will not be contributing a penny towards this event, whereas those of much lower incomes who do pay tax will be.

[mangerton]

And there is the additional irony that those with high incomes who manage to avoid paying tax altogether will not be contributing a penny towards this event, whereas those of much lower incomes who do pay tax will be.

Yes, but no need to worry, because they're likely to be the (lovely phrase!) [offensive language deleted].

[Richard Barrett]

Well, you know, I do have other things to do aside from digging up statistics for people whose assumptions they probably aren't going to change, but here are a few facts:

In 2005-06, contributed income (from sponsors, trust etcetera) accounted for 9% of the income of Art Council England's (ACE) regularly funded organisations. 44% of income was earned, 35% accounted for by ACE subsidy, and 12% by local government and other public funding. (National Campaign for the Arts) Therefore even a generation after Thatcher took power, private sponsorship is about a quarter of ACE sponsorship (which of course has fallen greatly since its first ever cut in 1980).

Private sponsorship is also highly sensitive to the profitability of the companies giving it out, whose only responsibility is to themselves. In 2011, business investment in the arts fell (by 7%) for the fourth year in a row (analysis from Arts & Business). At the same time, business sponsorship is obviously going to be skewed in the direction of sure-fire public successes, so that any event of less than blockbuster size doesn't attract sponsorship, for example Tate Britain's currently running Kurt Schwitters exhibition, which has no corporate sponsors. Business sponsorship is also skewed towards London, which accounted for 68.2% of all private investment in the arts in 2010, and towards broadcast media, which accounted for 60.7% of total sponsorship in that year. (There's also the question, from the artist's point of view, of the ethics of where the money comes from, which is more relevant than it might seem in that many of the companies who are enthusiastic about arts sponsorship are so in a bid to address an "image problem" of one sort or another.)

As we all know, public arts funding is being cut by the ConDems to an extent not even Thatcher managed; but at the same time the government is also cutting its grant to the Arts & Business organisation, which presently has 12 offices and 70 staff and exists expressly in order to organise and broker private arts sponsorship, and which would as a result "have immense difficulty surviving in anything like its present form" (Marketing Week) - thus from another direction accelerating the transition from public funding to no funding.

Will that do for now?

[ahinton]

Well, you know, I do have other things to do aside from digging up statistics for people whose assumptions they probably aren't going to change, but here are a few facts:

In 2005-06, contributed income (from sponsors, trust etcetera) accounted for 9% of the income of Art Council England's (ACE) regularly funded organisations. 44% of income was earned, 35% accounted for by ACE subsidy, and 12% by local government and other public funding. (National Campaign for the Arts) Therefore even a generation after Thatcher took power, private sponsorship is about a quarter of ACE sponsorship (which of course has fallen greatly since its first ever cut in 1980).

Private sponsorship is also highly sensitive to the profitability of the companies giving it out, whose only responsibility is to themselves. In 2011, business investment in the arts fell (by 7%) for the fourth year in a row (analysis from Arts & Business). At the same time, business sponsorship is obviously going to be skewed in the direction of sure-fire public successes, so that any event of less than blockbuster size doesn't attract sponsorship, for example Tate Britain's currently running Kurt Schwitters exhibition, which has no corporate sponsors. Business sponsorship is also skewed towards London, which accounted for 68.2% of all private investment in the arts in 2010, and towards broadcast media, which accounted for 60.7% of total sponsorship in that year. (There's also the question, from the artist's point of view, of the ethics of where the money comes from, which is more relevant than it might seem in that many of the companies who are enthusiastic about arts sponsorship are so in a bid to address an "image problem" of one sort or another.)

As we all know, public arts funding is being cut by the ConDems to an extent not even Thatcher managed; but at the same time the government is also cutting its grant to the Arts & Business organisation, which presently has 12 offices and 70 staff and exists expressly in order to organise and broker private arts sponsorship, and which would as a result "have immense difficulty surviving in anything like its present form" (Marketing Week) - thus from another direction accelerating the transition from public funding to no funding.

Will that do for now?

Handsomely, as far as I am concerned, although the truths are deeply unpleasant. Thank you for going to the trouble of doing this.

Must go now; I have a funeral to attend.

[MrGongGong]

Watching this sad and sombre occasion, as I type this, reminds me of just how exceptionally well we carry out these type of events.

WE ?

More "received wisdom" that doesn't stand up to scrutiny
Compare and contrast ........... Trooping of the colour
American Football Marching band
North Korean Mass Games


I think a poor third to the UK (though I would't want to live in the others and that's NOT what the real choice is anyway )

[Mr Pee]

WE ?

More "received wisdom" that doesn't stand up to scrutiny
Compare and contrast ........... Trooping of the colour
American Football Marching band
North Korean Mass Games


I think a poor third to the UK (though I would't want to live in the others and that's NOT what the real choice is anyway )

That latter two are not remotely comparable to the first, Mr.GG.

[eighthobstruction]

"I will come again"....