The Student Room Group

£10 MILLION publically funded funeral for Thatcher?!?!!??!

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Scumbaggio
It'd be much cheaper for the Thatchers to pay for the funeral.

I'm sure she was worth £9 million when she died.

A private and much smaller funeral PAID FOR BY THE THATCHERS would be much more appropriate.

Thatcher also stipulated that wanted the prime minister of the day to speak at her funeral. What a joke.

A truly disgusting use of public money and whether you lean to the left or the right you surely must see that.


The Thatchers will be making a small contribution, but yes, the government will pay the lions share.

Why should the Thatchers pay when the state wants to honour one of its citizens, or refuse the honour?

Should OBEs, CBEs, MBEs etc be made to pay for their own medals too?
(edited 11 years ago)
Reminds me of when they built that £1 million statue of Reagan. My idea of building it out of Play-Doo to reduce costs didn't slide it seems. :sad:
This all sounds a bit like 'The wealth will trickle down'.

Misleading and untrue.
Reply 143
Times of austerity eh?

I don't think you could possibly think of a worse way to spend £10M. We might as well have given £10M to North Korea.
Original post by Scumbaggio
This all sounds a bit like 'The wealth will trickle down'.

Misleading and untrue.

You've have completely mis-understood. Open your economics text book and look at the circular flow, this is not the government giving wealth to those with the ability to distribute capital to create employment, this is the government spending on an event (the event output ), the event is expected to create more output within the economy, as that spending is passed on. This is the bedrock of Keynesian economics. The point is that the spending on the funeral will not cost 10m in the long run, the output created from the long run will be taxed, thus returning revenue to the government.
Original post by miser
£10 million on a funeral. It's called austerity.

It won't cost 10m in the long run however.
Original post by Thriftworks
You've have completely mis-understood. Open your economics text book and look at the circular flow, this is not the government giving wealth to those with the ability to distribute capital to create employment, this is the government spending on an event (the event output ), the event is expected to create more output within the economy, as that spending is passed on. This is the bedrock of Keynesian economics. The point is that the spending on the funeral will not cost 10m in the long run, the output created from the long run will be taxed, thus returning revenue to the government.


I'm really glad you mentioned that. Your logic has at least made me laugh it is so pathetic.

What other Keynesian economic policies have this government used?

This is just a big send off for a Tory hero and it truly sickens me that people are trying to portray it as actually helping the country.

I'm starting to wish for serious disorder on Wednesday.
Reply 147
Original post by Thriftworks
You've have completely mis-understood. Open your economics text book and look at the circular flow, this is not the government giving wealth to those with the ability to distribute capital to create employment, this is the government spending on an event (the event output ), the event is expected to create more output within the economy, as that spending is passed on. This is the bedrock of Keynesian economics. The point is that the spending on the funeral will not cost 10m in the long run, the output created from the long run will be taxed, thus returning revenue to the government.


Ah like the Royal wedding you mean?

http://politicalscrapbook.net/2011/07/cameron-royal-wedding-economy/


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/29/royal-wedding-tourism-boost
Royal wedding was a bank holiday the funeral will not be, thus your point is rendered invalid.tc
Original post by Scumbaggio
I'm really glad you mentioned that. Your logic has at least made me laugh it is so pathetic.

What other Keynesian economic policies have this government used?

This is just a big send off for a Tory hero and it truly sickens me that people are trying to portray it as actually helping the country.

I'm starting to wish for serious disorder on Wednesday.


You fail to point out these 'flaws' you speak of. You have presented no argument, whilst the government hasn't widely practiced Keynesian economics, programs such as HS2 are clear examples of Keynesian policies being used, besides this is besides the point as the logic behind the original argument still stands.
Reply 150
Original post by Mycroft Holmes
I thought Thatcher herself said that she didn't want a state funeral? Why is she getting one when people were adamant on the day she died that she wasn't getting one?


No. She said she didn't want to lie in state. I think she was quite prepared for full honours. :smile:

<3 x
Reply 151
i wish i was important enough to have a state funeral
Reply 152
Original post by Thriftworks
You've have completely mis-understood. Open your economics text book and look at the circular flow, this is not the government giving wealth to those with the ability to distribute capital to create employment, this is the government spending on an event (the event output ), the event is expected to create more output within the economy, as that spending is passed on. This is the bedrock of Keynesian economics. The point is that the spending on the funeral will not cost 10m in the long run, the output created from the long run will be taxed, thus returning revenue to the government.


If this is the case why are they cutting jobs and making people redudant.
Original post by loversh
If this is the case why are they cutting jobs and making people redudant.


Because that has nothing to do with holding events that are economically beneficial?
Sling her down one of the empty mines that mark her legacy. She'd like that.
I think what a lot of people forget is that an awful lot of that money is not spent directly on the funeral itself, but on protecting all the crowds who turn up. At a funeral of any prominent person, no matter how grand the actual event is, those costs are inevitable.

Original post by Heidihi7894

She wouldn't have wanted this funeral, but people can at least stop complaining about the cost.


On the contrary: she organised it.
****ing ridiculous that anyone assosciated with Labour tuned up, let alone Miliband.
Original post by Rascacielos
I think what a lot of people forget is that an awful lot of that money is not spent directly on the funeral itself, but on protecting all the crowds who turn up. At a funeral of any prominent person, no matter how grand the actual event is, those costs are inevitable.



On the contrary: she organised it.



Most sensible people plan their funeral. It would be interesting to see what the policing bill would've been for just a private funeral with that many VIPs attending and members of the public attending. If you take that bill, from this bill I suspect you'll find that its not that much different.

I understand that she was a divisive politician, but I'm sensing these demonstrators are just alienating their cause even further. It's not until times like this that you realise they're just a vocal minority in the first place
Reply 158
Original post by MattKneale
Because that has nothing to do with holding events that are economically beneficial?


Using your argument how is holding a one off big event more beneficial than keeping people in there job to spend more money .
Reply 159
Original post by MatureStudent36
It's not until times like this that you realise they're just a vocal minority in the first place


Thats the spirit. **** minorities.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending