Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
surely that goes against her every principle and is not at all what she'd want?
sponsorship, tickets, VIP packages, TV rights etc,
Logos, branding, tie-ins
it's what she would have wanted
I'm sure Branson would be glad to have a crack at it.
there's already a petition.
i.e. in privatisation ....so that some people can make a shed load of money
doesnt mean that they believe this for other purposes, why not get the state to pay for it, take some more benefit away from the already relatively poor? what do they care.
Plus underneath it all, it doesn't matter what you argue or think....THEY ARE YOUR RULERS......YOU ARE THEIR SUBJECT
so basically since you are their subject they will want to make you all pay for her and thus honour her with some of your time/effort whether you like it or not.
because we are pieces of little shit if we disagree
:) according to the gospel of thatcher :D
It's what she would have wanted.
what with the cuts forced on the BBC, they really shouldn't be made to broadcast the event. Let Murdoch buy it and show it on SKY and sell live betting and car insurance in the ad breaks
I'm not being spiteful or vindictive - there is a clear logic to what I'm saying
what's your justification for her quasi-state burial ? Is there one?
Where did I say that I supported a quasi-state burial?
Thatcher's policies did real damage to my family and to many, many others. Why would I revel in that? She's dead, so what? It doesn't change what she or those in her wake have done or are doing - whether that's Blair or Cameron or whoever.
I didn't say you supported a quasi-state burial, I asked you or anyone really - as an intellectual exercise - to try and make justifications for it
and the Queen has authorised it?
what's the justification for making the taxpayer foot the bill for a woman whose ideological legacy is privatisation?
Or to put it another way, what's the justification for denying private companies the opportunity to try and generate profit from her funeral by organising and policing the event, selling tickets and generating sponsorship and advertising alongside it?
part is not process. There is precedent for former PMs to have state or ceremonial funerals at the expense of the state.
unless you take your justification as 'because it happened before' in which case you could argue there is also 'precedent' in NOT doing it
just as you could argue she was a globally despised stateswoman
Are you sure?
to a few northern industrial towns and Welsh mining villages
of parties celebrating her death outside the UK.
The grim reaper!
The Worcester News headline is also incroyable.
The bellwether of global opinion.
of something you haven't yet seen within a few minutes you decided to immediately dismiss them as irrelevant.
were "globally despised".
of "globally despised" compared to "globally respected".
right-of-centre is perhaps inaccurate
centre-right is more fair
Fairly cold to lukewarm responses from
because for some bizarre reason they've decided only to run quotes from supporters of a murderous right-wing coup. As well as getting the date of Pinochet's death wrong by 16 years.
Still doesn't make her "globally despised".
globally dispise her..... :D
words words words
what do they mean eh?
Of all the Prime Ministers who have served under this Queen, Thatcher is the one she has supposedly disliked and disagreed with the most, both in terms of personality and policies.
I wouldn't see this as an endorsement from her at all.
a) then why doesnt the globe pay for it?
b) the queen has not authority, her consent is merely ceremonial, she has no power, parliament has all the power, the monarchs' "giving consent to the government" is ceremonial as parliaments agreement to this "consent pageant" is their decision which they can decide to not abide by.
I don't think there should be a state(ish) funeral, as she was so divisive. Not many would argue against Churchill receiving one. The only reason I come near to backing one is just because it winds so many people up, but that's my contraryism.
There should be a big venue for a formal funeral ceremony befitting a world leader of her stature. Given the risks involved in that, I do not think it is unreasonable for the taxpayer to foot the security bill for this.
what's the justification for denying private companies the opportunity to try and generate profit from her funeral by organising and policing the event, selling tickets and generating sponsorship and advertising alongside it?
Funerals aren't the sort of thing you privatise are they?
if it's a public event
Pretty sure it wouldn't be a batshit crazy thing to do.
You've convinced me that, funerals could see the same level of improvement that the NHS has seen with the introduction of private funding.
deny private companies the opportunity to try and generate profit from her funeral by organising and policing the event, selling tickets and generating sponsorship and advertising alongside it?
but there are at least 2 credible answers - one consistent with right-of-centre ideology and one consistent with left-of-centre ideology
that a politician's funeral should be consistent with their political ideology?
I think you've misunderstood me
perhaps I should be clearer
I have asked the question;
why deny private companies the opportunity to try and generate profit from her funeral by organising and policing the event, selling tickets and generating sponsorship and advertising alongside it?
I am interested to here a response to this question but those on here with right-of-centre views have avoiding answering the question - presumably because they feel it's some kind of a trap that would show them to be hypocrites ... but it isn't designed that way
so I'll help you get started on your answer
'It is right to deny private companies in profiting from her funeral because...'
involved the privatisation of absolutely everything.
it's also a major public event which will fill up the streets of London and be broadcast around the globe
and if it appears that I'm being trolly it's only because I'm persistently asking a question because you three stooges here are refusing to answer the question
I don't believe there should be a state or quasi state funeral. As a result, quite frankly, this second question is irrelevent to me.
I never thought such a reasonable question would be so studiously avoided
you're just doing a weird creaky-esque thing.
nobody has given a reason for denying private companies this opportunity
thats an answer. if you don't want to agree with this answer, thats fine, but you're doing some really weird trolling here.
it will be a massive public event
saying 'it is a funeral' is an empty statement - as empty as saying 'because we don't do that' - what I'm asking is WHY we don't do that? why?
dictate that a funeral is an inappropriate forum for profiteering. A funeral is an occasion for the purposes of commemorating the life of a deceased person, not for the purposes of making money.
that they dictate that as a guest at a funeral it would be inappropriate for me to drop my kecks and defecate on the coffin.
that sponsorship, advertising and branding are equivalent to defecating
but you still haven't said why, what is that 'same reason' ?
and Jordan's comments on this odd line of questioning.
more thin air
to be expected I suppose
What are you talking about?
partly questioning why we don't apply free market economics evenly and why we feel some areas are sacred (Maggie's funeral) and some areas aren't (education, health, etc.)
and partly, despite the seeming belief among some, the desire to communicate that her funeral will be nothing like a funeral as we know it and will instead be a mass media public event used to propagandise a certain way of thinking and that any dissent with regard to her memory will be rather sinisterly described as animal behaviour or similar - which brings us back to the link
...it is believed (by some people) that there is a wide social and economic benefit to be had be introducing market forces into things like education and healthcare. And, as a result, politicians debate it and try it out with mixed results.
The privatisation debate hasn't developed yet to the extent that it covers areas so niche as pseudo-state funerals for former Prime Ministers because, y'know, the economic and social benefits of this are not very widespread and/or important. No-one has suggested that introducing market forces into this tiny area of economy would be widely beneficial to society (like areas such as education etc.) aside from to satisfy the bonkers contrarianism of someone on the internet who thinks that, in debating it, he is making some kind of canonical political point.
Ken Loach said it correctly as a satirical political gag/missive. For you to try and run with that into some kind of political debate is, quite frankly, tedious.
There's your answer.
I don't know how you can still consider and talk about this public event as if it were a private funeral
and in the the light of every single bloody cut Cameron's Govt. has 'had' to make against the unemployed, the disabled, the working poor - for you all to be contributing to a nauseatingly sycophantic send-off (for it will be, & doubtless a magnet too for social unrest and division) of the very person who in large part created this appalling reality for most of the populace is, what's the word... there's many... I'm gonna go with 'astounding' for now
and I really wish people would stop being willfully ignorant of the fact that this is not a question about privatising an industry - this is about capitalising on an event, and it WILL be capitalised and is already being capitalised all over the media and in politics today, tomorrow
and we'll see next week
"The privatisation debate hasn't developed yet to the extent that it covers areas so niche as pseudo-state funerals for former Prime Ministers"
I was making no comment on it being a `public` event - just on it being a small area of concern meaning the merits of introducing market forces to it are, y'know, a bit irrelevant and small fry.
Out of ALL the things to be concerned with about Thatcher and her legacy and everything else... how significant IS this to you? Does it REALLY matter? Because it matters not one iota to me...
it has a wider significance that I expected to get to quite quickly but everyone seems to have gotten bogged down in the literal 'privatisation' thing rather than the general cannibalisation of all areas of life by corporatism which she opened the door too
but never mind eh
labored way to make a not very original point.
You see, I don't think she did open the door to the general cannibalisation of life by corporatism. She wasn't against it, sure, but this is a pretty weak point because, well... it isn't really true.
Therefore, the literal use of privatisation was a more logical means of debate because, well, she's synonymous with that and... yeah.
Anyway - I'm out of here because this conversation is utterly pointless.
No one's making you buy anything they're selling. You don't want corporations at your funeral? That's fine, don't have them. If you want to try and get Nike to sponsor your funeral? Go right ahead.
No one is forcing you to do anything you don't want.
...their slogan should be Nike - Just Did It.
^ Marketing genius. Right there.
But this is now near-unreadable.
to accept the doctrine of capitalism
clear channel broadcasts messages at me wherever I look
there's no adblock for billboards
and there's no 'consumer choice' for/against Trident
but we've had this conversation before
as "the very person who in large part created this appalling reality for most of the populace". You realise that she hasn't been in power for 23 years, yeah? And that we've since had a Labour government for 13 years, which is longer than she was PM?
that's a weak effort
nobody has signed the magna carta since 1215 but it was still a significant piece of paper until only relatively recently
They could have legislated as they wished to avoid the "appalling reality for most of the populace" to which you refer.
by making the decision to give any individual a level of state (little 's') funeral above that which was usually considered to be appropriate for their circumstances in the past will always end up being politicised by one side or both - in and of itself it's essentially a political decision as no precedent has been set and previous protocol isn't being followed.
I don't particularly agree with the decision that's been made, but that said, ultimately there's no solution that would have satisfied everyone with Thatcher as people on both sides have such strong views about her as an individual. While I don't subscribe to the view that anyone should be immune from criticism even in death, I do believe that they deserve a respectful funeral without people hawking memorabilia, tickets etc around it unless they've explicitly requested something in their will/through their loved ones.
I'm gonna stick my neck out here and say you will not be the last person to invoke the spirit of her corpse as an excuse to further your own opinions and claim them in her name
I reckon the Conservative party are going to be doing a LOT of this in the coming weeks, months, years ...
She has been consulted by Government and relevant others (over the last five years, I believe) about the arrangements for her funeral.
I'm pretty sure that at no point she requested a ticketed event with sponsorship and a merch stand.
We can't rule it out then :)
Of course, if she did request a ticketed event with sponsorship and a merch stand and she was over-ruled by the powers that be, then I apologise unreservedly to BITT.
of this being a Live Nation promoted event at Somerset House now.
most people would just say "just some quavers and sausage rolls down the community centre will do me cheers" and leave it at that
should foot the bill for a hell of a lot of things.
And look where we've ended up.
if so its a non-issue
This is the first since Churchill.
nuts to the state paying for it, then
the coupon you can fill out in the Daily Mail's campaign FOR a state funeral
that it was to be paid for jointly by the Conservative Party and the Thatcher estate.
All I really care about - no day off.
what happened with their funeral?
1,600 people at Salisbury Cathedral
Interesting Wiki page:
Nelson, Duke of Wellington, Churchill, Haig, Newton, Gladstone amongst others.
Just scroll down.
unless the Thatcher Estate has some kind of private deal that allows them to directly employ the police as their own private security
What's the deal with football games, by comparison? I think they contribute to the costs of local policing around games (though it is taxpayer subsidised) don't they?
Maybe it's the same deal here. It's just like any other large public event.
football clubs pay for police in the stadium where necessary, but not outside. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-21699007
with the police forcing the funeral to be held at 11am on a Sunday morning with travelling mourners only allowed if they're bused in from Scratchwood services on the M1 then?
with that money they contribute to police costs
you Tories in this thread are being very coy about something you usually trumpet
ooji up there is right, you're loving this.
"...What's the deal with football games, by comparison? I think they contribute to the costs of local policing around games (though it is taxpayer subsidised) don't they?
Maybe it's the same deal here. It's just like any other large public event. "
if so, fair enough you have a point.
and in the case of football games is offset by the tax paid by the football club in the form of their local community taxes which they generate from revenue from ticket sales, sponsorship, advertising, merchandise and so on
why on earth is everyone being so obtuse about this?
but cg & raanraals have said it should be paid for by taxpayers because it's a public event
Body_In_The_Thames | 9 Apr '13, 10:45 | ^ This | Reply
No we (or at least I) haven't.
GayGuevara | 9 Apr '13, 10:50 | ^ This | Reply
What's the deal with football games, by comparison? I think they contribute to the costs of local policing around games (though it is taxpayer subsidised) don't they?
Maybe it's the same deal here. It's just like any other large public event.
GayGuevara | 9 Apr '13, 10:26 | ^ This | Reply
Not that we *should* be subsiding (any) public events.
Cool trolling though, bro. You managed to engage me in something I didn't really intend to get involved.
then this one should be too
glad we've got your opinion clear on that
Private donations for example. Which, if licky_kicky's post further up this thread is true, is where the money will come from. No need for the tickets or advertising or merchandise you seem so madly keen on for some reason.
I am keen however to hear the arguments against such capitalist/corporatist opportunism from those who are usually the first to champion it
...as well as being a large public event, it is a funeral. It's not a binary either/or. Alongside a funeral comes a certain level of respect for the 'institution' itself, which doesn't really align with the idea of selling tickets, merchandising etc. It seems like you're making it far more complex than that when, frankly, it isn't.
it's a matter of dignity
no one wants rampant market forces applied to their funeral or anyone else's for that matter- I don't and I wouldn't want to see it happen
but equally I think that to have the State and Military apparatus mobilised at the cost of the taxpayer means that her funeral is ultimately a political statement on behalf of the Conservative party and I am surprised at how few people are objecting to that
Dignity is a key word when it comes to Thatcher and what she did to the working classes in the UK and what her warm welcome (along with Reagan's) to corporatism has done to the rest of us
neoliberal economics has forced us, continues to force us, to eat shit and be thankful for it
When Thatcher took over as Prime Minister the wealth gap in the UK was a tiny fraction of what it is now and she drove it wide apart
and her policies dumped millions of people onto the dole and stripped them of what gave them their dignity - the feeling of contributing, of being a part of something, of their labour producing a result, producing a thing
So now we are back to her funeral - dignity and gravitas.
It might seem odd to many here to learn that there was a time when it wasn't just the rich and powerful who were afforded dignity but sadly that is simply not the case anymore
the political and ruling classes of contemporary capitalism and corporatism have made it so that the public is hardly an entity at all beyond being demographics and vessels from which a tiny number of corporations with the wealth of empires can extract at their will
Thatcher didn't invent capitalism nor was she the only world leader who embraced it but during the 1980s she, as one half of the 'special relationship' threw the doors open and invited the money men to feast on what was sold as the great opportunity for the shareholder society
fast forward to now and Gove wants to liquidate the schools, Shapps wants to liquidate the hospitals... it wont take many big distractions for them sneak through unopposed
end of rant
down from soap box
you all probably think I'm mad but I don't care
that wasn't the intention
but you guys forced me over the creaky precipice I guess
of human history when "it wasn't just the rich and powerful who were afforded dignity".
people within their community were not spit upon by their own for having an ever so slightly different material circumstance
but I guess this may have only been a period between the post-war boom and the beginning of the 80s
we're talking about a funeral
"Thatcherite"? Surely that has been practised by almost every ruler/government everywhere in the world since the dawn of human rule/government.
and the dismantling of public services are her legacy
her housing policy and her dumping of the manufacturing industry on the dole created entire regions of the unemployed and unemployable that are now into their 2nd & maybe 3rd generations and are handy pariahs for the current Govt. & right-leaning media to poor scorn on
In this instance, Mags has decided against it. She has been afforded commercial choice, a goal for which she worked her whole life.
glad we've got that settled
why are you being the enemy of the market CG?
just as all taxpayers have little ability to withdraw their taxes from events or programmes they do not agree with if the Exectuive has determined them to be worthwhile.
The jusitification is that Mags has chosen to deny private companies those opportunities, as is her right to do so in a free market economy. It's a very simple concept.
none at all in fact
That said, given the divisive nature of Thatcher's time as PM, I don't think it's right to be suddenly affording her a higher level of funeral (with a bucketload of funding) than those who went before her. It's something that's better sorted out as a matter or principle by govt away from any individual's death.
St. Paul's Cathedral
a small private funeral then
So anyone who lives/works in central London, I'm sure that'll be nice and quiet for you.
is clearly not an anti-thatcherite
They should bury her on the Falkland Islands, at the expense of the islanders. They love her and would honestly see it as an honour, and she’d be buried on the site of her least contentious (in the UK) big decision. She wouldn’t have the big state funeral that would annoy the left, but she wouldn’t be ignored which would annoy the right. Is that a solution that everyone could be happy with?
Just running some ideas up the flagpole here.
Fuck those motherfuckers.
like they do
There's no such thing as sauce! I ate T?
(tried a variation on ^this in a thread last night. was shit then, and worse now.)
if she wants an expensive funeral
there is a great opportunity for commemorative mugs
It says the famous *this lady is not for turning* quote, which is extra relevant cause the action figure isn't poseable.
Does that answer the question?
In all seriousness, she is too contentious a leader to be honoured in such a way. Not that I will picket her funeral. That would be sick, and I mean that in its pejorative original definition.
we could all symbolically flush our loos
:D.....little expense, minimal corporate involvement and we would all be in it together........
hmmm do you think that little effigies of her to flush would make money? ;D (dont worry only joking....unless theres money in it of course, she would have approved)
thing is Cameron has said that we will all pay and since he is currently our ruler, then we will have to pay, there is no discussion to be had, we have no option, he says, we have to do.
Simples.... perhaps we should bury her as a dis thread subject now?
and so it begins
“We are all Thatcherites now" says Cameron radio 4's Today programme "the big arguments she had everyone now accepts"
I see now that the funeral could never have been privatised because that would get in the way of all the Tory branding which can just be siphoned from the public slush fund
What other Party Political Broadcasts have cost the taxpayer £10m*?
*estimated - final budget will be triple that at least
I didn't mean Party Political Broadcast
I meant Stalinist propaganda pantomine
he's trolled me
Its little wonder that a stream of sh** comes out of him (this is MY joke, that I have just made up)
my attempts to get to work were really, really frustrating, the police are pathetically disorganised and im pretty angry
what an ugly, pompous, inappropriate propaganda riven spectacle this is ...
Fucking Milky T , trolling from beyond the grave.
I'd imagine that even some of the most forthright idealogues on the right are having their stomachs churned by this
still, £10million ... that means we're gonna get the hologram in a minute right?
Truly wonderful stuff. Worth every penny.
But the speech itself was top notch. They showed a video beforehand of Thatcher's achievements and it really made me a convert to the Thatcherite cause. The tributes to his wife seemed genuine and he almost had to stifle a tear when talking about the death of his predecessor, but he did it in such a way where it didn't seem contrived.
the general opinion I've encountered this morning seems to be that most people don't really seem to give a shit about it either way
Pretty much the most anti-establishment thing in the bible:
"10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13 Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. 14 Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 15 and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. 16 In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.
18 And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the Lord’s people."
"Today is a good day to bury bad news".
says it all
has anyone registered www.isosbournecrying.com ?
worth every penny
What a fucking cunt
Fucking hate him
Fuck off the lot of them
Pretty disrespectful 'mourning' someone so detested, so soon after those bombings.
Yeah I know there's no correlation between the 2, but even so.
Boston was a well-known city for fundraising for 'the cause'
and Thatcher told Mandelson 'Never trust the Irish, they're all liars'
she let the hunger strikers starve to death and the British military intelligence was involved with the killing of the Belfast solicitor Pat Finucane...
and some other stuff probably
Bit of a tricky one really..
the only footballing minutes silence was at Wingate & Finchley (local MP and club patron), so can't see that any other clubs would try and mark it in any other way.
hmmm. Really shit at maths.
I was definitely playing Sonic 3D while something was going on regarding Diana on the news
no need to be so snappy
Nor does the taxpayer have the option of not paying tax (unless they are enough to be able to follow the dubious courses of action that rich tax dodgers employ)
The government are our rulers, NOT our leaders
what the sight of steel shutters sparks inside you
I don't really get it, they didn't even bother with an effigy. It's just a bonfire. Still, they seem to be enjoying themselves.
affeared that it would be decided that this was some sort of offence and they would have some actions taken against them.