Further reflections on the funeral

[Richard Barrett]

My thought on this is that I would change the description "institutional philistinism" to "governmental philistinism"

That's a fair point, aeolium. I wasn't intending such institutions as the South Bank Centre. I did to a certain extent have the BBC in mind, in view of the dumbing-down phenomenon much commented upon on this forum, although at the same time I wouldn't include any of the people I know at Radio 3 in that generalisation, since they have to deal with its priorities whether they agree with them or not.

[ahinton]

And likewise for her vindictive and disrespectful left- wing critics. Never the twain shall meet, so there is now no point in churning out the same old arguments day after day.

It is very difficult to respect someone who has done and been responsible for so much social damage but, in so saying, I should stress again that I for one am neither vindictive nor left-wing.

It's over, she's gone, let's all just move on.

Whilst I understand what you're seeking here, it remains a fact that, whilst MT has herself gone, her legacy has not - and this is something on which even many of her detractors and her supporters agree.

[Serial_Apologist]

Margaret Thatcher's coffin rested at St.Clement Danes church en route to St.Pauls. That church is the central church of the Royal Air Force. Without the Royal Air Force defeating the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain, it is highly probable that this country would have been occupied by the Nazis. Therefore, yes, that freedom of expression is only possible as a direct consequence of military action.

I hadn't realised that Margaret Thatcher and her family were responsible for the defeat of Hitler.

[Alison]

I am surprised some of you don't need a break from all this.

[Mr Pee]

I hadn't realised that Margaret Thatcher and her family responsible for the defeat of Hitler.

You know that is not the point AH was attempting to make, and neither was I.

[ahinton]

Margaret Thatcher's coffin rested at St.Clement Danes church en route to St.Pauls. That church is the central church of the Royal Air Force. Without the Royal Air Force defeating the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain, it is highly probable that this country would have been occupied by the Nazis. Therefore, yes, that freedom of expression is only possible as a direct consequence of military action.

Well, thank you for clarifying your view. That said, whilst I know well the relationship between St. Clement Danes and the RAF, the former dates from 230 years before the latter and it was not until a further 40 years after the formation of RAF that it was re-consecrated, as you correctly say that it is, as the Central Church of RAF. In any case, whose idea was it that the coffin should rest there on its way to St. Paul's and why?

And obviously you know that the gun carriage is purely part of the traditional ceremonial.

Of course I do. Knowing it doesn't mean that I either agree with or see the point of it, however - and I would have thought that you'd have realised that my remark here was intentionally somewhat facetious...

[Serial_Apologist]

You know that is not the point AH was attempting to make, and neither was I.

You've more-or-less equated the two events though.

[gurnemanz]

I hadn't realised that Margaret Thatcher and her family were responsible for the defeat of Hitler.

The Daily Mail certainly wasn't. Rothermere was a friend of his.

[Mr Pee]

I am surprised some of you don't need a break from all this.

I agree. I shan't even be glancing at this thread again. No point.

So.......



and

[An_Inspector_Calls]

It's really quite difficult to have a discussion with you, isn't it. A_I_C?

You mean because I don't share your viewpoint?

I raised the point about ACE not being the whole story in terms of the UK arts scene several posts ago. I assume I am allowed to make my own points, just as you've raised and then exclusively focussed on the appointment of Bazalgette? I don't share your energy and determination to see at every turn a right-wing establishment plot to diminish the arts scene. I do see understandable difficulties in finding arts funding in these difficult financial times. But continue with your efforts if you like . . .

[ahinton]

You know that is not the point AH was attempting to make, and neither was I.

Indeed it wasn't, but that's only because I didn't think that I needed to make it ; it would seem, however, that I was wrong to conclude that. The fact remains that we are here discussing the period 1979-1990 and the legacy thereof as well as, to some extent, the decade or so that led up to the beginning of MT's prime ministership; quite obviously, all of that is long after the close of WWII. Drawing too many parallels between wartime and peacetime governmental conduct is the kind of thing that blinds a few people to the fact that Winston Churchill was a more effective wartime PM than he was a peacetime one, a fact widely acknowledged by many of his admirers.

[ahinton]

I raised the point about ACE not being the whole story in terms of the UK arts scene several posts ago. I assume I am allowed to make my own points, just as you've raised and then exclusively focussed on the appointment of Bazalgette? I don't share your energy and determination to see at every turn a right-wing establishment plot to diminish the arts scene. I do see understandable difficulties in finding arts funding in these difficult financial times. But continue with your efforts if you like . . .

This is really unreasonable. RB has made it quite clear that he is not suggesting that ACE is "the whole story in terms of the UK arts scene". Of course you are "allowed to make (your) own points", but the value any that you do make risks being undermined by the fact that no one appears to have suggested the contrary! Again, RB did not "exclusively focus on the appointment of Bazalgette"; he raised that subject in the broader context of substantial cuts to the budgets of ACE and A&B. RB made no specific assertions about a "right-wing establishment plot to diminish the arts scene"; what he did, on the contrary, was to point out that the moves to affect that scene today are a good deal more serious and damaging that has been the case in the past, as demonstrated by relevant figures, which is clearly not the same thing. There are indeed "understandable difficulties in finding arts funding in these difficult financial times", but there are such difficulties at all times - and, in any case, stating this without taking any account of why the present economic situation is as parlous as it is strikes me as less than helpful.

May I therefore respectfully suggest that you re-read RB's posts on this, more carefully and less selectively? They are not, after all, hard to understand.

[Richard Barrett]

You mean because I don't share your viewpoint?

No, I mean because all you do is disagree with it, instead of expressing a viewpoint of your own, but never mind.

I don't believe there's a "right-wing establishment plot to diminish the arts scene". I believe that the diminishing of the arts scene, which you profess not to perceive, is a completely logical outcome of the way that all governments since Thatcher's have elevated the priorities of the market above all other values they might choose to support. The difference in Thatcher's case was that her attack on the arts was part of a wider ideological campaign to stifle possible focal points of dissent against those priorities; again there was no conspiracy - I've already mentioned that Tebbit was very clear about his attitudes in this regard, and you may also recall that Thatcher's first Arts Minister, Norman St John Stevas (a cultured individual, whatever else he may have been), was swiftly removed from his post as a "wet" when he criticised her policies.

[ahinton]

No, I mean because all you do is disagree with it, instead of expressing a viewpoint of your own, but never mind.

I don't believe there's a "right-wing establishment plot to diminish the arts scene". I believe that the diminishing of the arts scene, which you profess not to perceive, is a completely logical outcome of the way that all governments since Thatcher's have elevated the priorities of the market above all other values they might choose to support. The difference in Thatcher's case was that her attack on the arts was part of a wider ideological campaign to stifle possible focal points of dissent against those priorities; again there was no conspiracy - I've already mentioned that Tebbit was very clear about his attitudes in this regard, and you may also recall that Thatcher's first Arts Minister, Norman St John Stevas (a cultured individual, whatever else he may have been), was swiftly removed from his post as a "wet" when he criticised her policies.

This is all so painfully true. In fact, one of the fundamental flaws in the very ethos (if one could call it that) of Thatcherism is that if something is not readily capable of generating financial profit it is of no use and must somehow be derided and dispensed with; this attitude is what underpins the governmental philistinism and government-sponsored institutional philistinism that has, to greater or lesser degree, been rife for well over four decades in Britain, yet real life is simply not like that and such narrow-mindedness does no one any favours.

Conspiracies do indeed imply secretiveness, whereas what we're considering here is, as you suggest, overt and blatant.

To change the subject and return to the question of values of commissions for new works in Britain compared to those given elsewhere, would you see Britain as the worst - or one of the worst - in Western Europe or would you consider that it varies quite widely from country to country within Western Europe? I also wonder what conclusions, if any, might be drawn from relationships between a country's commission values and its royalty rates for performances, broadcasts, recordings and publications; there are vast discrepancies between royalty payments from one country to another - so much so, in fact, that it's hard to see why this is the case.

[Serial_Apologist]

This is all so painfully true. In fact, one of the fundamental flaws in the very ethos (if one could call it that) of Thatcherism is that if something is not readily capable of generating financial profit it is of no use and must somehow be derided and dispensed with; this attitude is what underpins the governmental philistinism and government-sponsored institutional philistinism that has, to greater or lesser degree, been rife for well over four decades in Britain, yet real life is simply not like that and such narrow-mindedness does no one any favours.

Conspiracies do indeed imply secretiveness, whereas what we're considering here is, as you suggest, overt and blatant.

Of course there are charities, or rather "subs", though the degree to which these really amount to government savings is up for discussion. One sees them outside retail centres, and they're on the contant razzle by phone, on the doorstep etc. One needs a mental inventory to keep track of which ones are bona fide. A lot of moral blackmail in incorporated into the ideological offensive of austerity, and it's been going a good deal longer. Even then one guiltily has to say "enough": how many public sector jobs am I colluding in destroying?