Ferrari's take on the 'Thatcher cost' story is a weird one. As far as I'm aware, the over-estimated costs were trailed in the right wing press as much as anywhere else and people, understandably, reacted to that. It didn't help when the Government refused to reveal the costs until a week after the funeral - which is ludicrous if not suspicious. I mean, it's not as if the Government don't know what it pays its own soldiers, police and intelligence services, or how much the church cost &c.
Also, the 'only cost 6p' angle is a weird one. I've heard him attack this line of questioning in the past when callers have proffered it (along with Hartley-Hare-Brewer &c) as a matter of principle: 'I don't care how little it costs, why should I pay for [insert Daily Mail bogeyman]?'
Funny how the argument suits when something matters to someone personally, isn't it?
Below is a quotation from the Dr Who threads, but I thought it might have some resonance for this LBC thread...
You don't need evidence to have {an opinion}. But you do to have one worth listening to I am afraid. Or at least for me.
A question for you.
Consider a matter such as Science...physics or something similar. On the one hand you have someone like Brian Cox who has studied and immersed himself in the subject and can give you an informed and educated opinion that crucially comes backed up with knowledge and evidence gathered from study.
On the other hand you have a drunk man in the pub who has never studied the subject, maybe scanned a few Wikipedia entries though little more. But once a few whiskeys have gone down he likes to hold forth about the origins of the universe and space and time and all things associated. He sure can make his voice heard. Quite a shouty chap actually.
Now both have an opinion. Both use that right to express it in their own way and quite right too.
But whose 'opinion' would you rather listen to?
I think there may be a few LBC presenters (and dare I also say callers) who could do with thinking about that!
Below is a quotation from the Dr Who threads, but I thought it might have some resonance for this LBC thread...
I think there may be a few LBC presenters (and dare I also say callers) who could do with thinking about that!
It's also interesting how often 'pub bores' fit into the Clarkson/Ferrari/Littlejohn paradigm.
As for Brian Cox, I'm seeing him tonight at a private opening of the new Natural History wing of Manchester Museum. Klang! (the sound of a name dropping!)
Ferrari's take on the 'Thatcher cost' story is a weird one. As far as I'm aware, the over-estimated costs were trailed in the right wing press as much as anywhere else and people, understandably, reacted to that. It didn't help when the Government refused to reveal the costs until a week after the funeral - which is ludicrous if not suspicious. I mean, it's not as if the Government don't know what it pays its own soldiers, police and intelligence services, or how much the church cost &c.
I am sure you would have been the first to shout if it had cost £10m which had been suggested. The fact that it cost considerably less than that; you should be pleased.
You didn't mention that the Thatcher family are making a contribution to this, so the actual cost to the taxpayer is even less.
The reason why they could not give a figure beforehand was because of contingency plans. If there had been a lot of demonstrations or something untoward happened this may have increased the costs.
Why do you look for a conspiracy that isn't there?
If you feel you should not be making a contribution, please send me your address and I will send you 6p in return, I would hate to think you are being hard-done-by.
Switched on radio this morning and heard NF saying:
"Is anyone man enough to phone in and say that Lady Thatcher wasn't worth this amount?"
Switched off immediately.
The language of a hypocritical bully. Whatever it cost, it would have been better spent on the living. As PoM said earlier, NF is only defending this because he liked Mrs T - had it been spent on 101 other things, he would have been railing against it.
I am sure you would have been the first to shout if it had cost £10m which had been suggested. The fact that it cost considerably less than that; you should be pleased.
You didn't mention that the Thatcher family are making a contribution to this, so the actual cost to the taxpayer is even less.
The reason why they could not give a figure beforehand was because of contingency plans. If there had been a lot of demonstrations or something untoward happened this may have increased the costs.
Why do you look for a conspiracy that isn't there?
If you feel you should not be making a contribution, please send me your address and I will send you 6p in return, I would hate to think you are being hard-done-by.
Which, I suspect, was the whole point of spreading that rumour in the first place. Imply that the cost will be enormous and then come back with something that is considerably less and pretend that they did it on a shoestring.
I am sure you would have been the first to shout if it had cost £10m which had been suggested. The fact that it cost considerably less than that; you should be pleased.
You didn't mention that the Thatcher family are making a contribution to this, so the actual cost to the taxpayer is even less.
The reason why they could not give a figure beforehand was because of contingency plans. If there had been a lot of demonstrations or something untoward happened this may have increased the costs.
Why do you look for a conspiracy that isn't there?
If you feel you should not be making a contribution, please send me your address and I will send you 6p in return, I would hate to think you are being hard-done-by.
You're wildly missing the point - intentionally or unintentionally.
I didn't mention that the Thatcher foundation have contributed because it wasn't relevant to the point I was making. I have mentioned this elsewhere though; it's not something I was wasn't aware of.
Wait a minute, the argument about policing costs from Ferrari, the right wing press et al is that the police were already being paid as they were on duty anyway, it was a cost already accounted for. This was a point repeatedly used before and after the funeral. It can't be argued both ways.
Also, care to address that the figure that people were angry about, whether it's £10m or £8m, was used in Thatcher-sympathetic press like the Daily Mail (who incidentally started a petition for a full state funeral, seemingly the when they felt it necessary to go 'but Blair and Brown said it was OK to spend this money!'
Order of events:
1. Newspapers, including right-wing Thatcher supporters and LBC presenters (overlap of demographics there) push these high figures out into the public.
2. Detractors get angry (apparently, 'there's no money left' as we keep being told).
3. Costs are defended repeatedly by same newspapers: police already on duty, best woman who ever sat down to piss and deserves it &c and, besides, New Labour okayed the funeral. It's all New Labour's fault!
5. Government say they won't release proper figures (although they've got a very good idea considering they've already repeatedly pointed out the police, armed services and intelligence are already getting paid, they know cost of the service &c). Detractors suspicious and curious as unless they fly in helicopters, drones and tanks, the cost won't rise that much.
6. Government then release actual cost which is a lot less than figures used by right wing press &c.
7. Same right wing press now saying what's the fuss about regarding the fuss they created.
8. The hard of thinking like Ferrari et al talk nonsense and act smug as if they had nothing to do with it.
In other news, the Daily Mail continues its public campaign to 'do something' about these 'internet trolls' who spread misinformation to antagonise and create unnecessary reactions.
Will my post mysteriously vanish now, Martin?
InB4 'bollocks' with a link:
Mr Cameron did not dispute reports that the funeral could cost as much as £10million, but said it paled into insignificance compared to what she had contributed to Britain.
As for Brian Cox, I'm seeing him tonight at a private opening of the new Natural History wing of Manchester Museum. Klang! (the sound of a name dropping!)
Going into battle with you PoM is like the first faint stirrings of a summer breeze meeting a raging tornado head-on!
Tin hats and body armour won’t do - the only answer is just to dig a hole and stay there until the danger has passed. But still an impressive sight - if you live to see it!!
So I am not even going to argue with you (would that I dare!) but simply say I was glad Margaret Thatcher was accorded the funeral she was. How mean-spirited this country would have looked and how astonished much of the rest of the world would have been had this not been done.
As for the cost well who apart from the hated right-wing press appeared to complain much about the price of the AV referendum imposed upon us by the Lib Dems now running fourth in the opinion polls.
They should have thought long and hard on the words attributed to one A. Lincoln
“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time”.
Hartley-Brewer completely misrepresenting why people go to foodbanks. It's all their fault, apparently because they've not turned up to workfare &c. No mention of people in between benefits through changing to JSA to ESA and vice versa, people made redundant and their claims not having gone through yet, or even - gasp - DWP cock-ups &c.
No, it's all the fault of the people on benefits themselves. It always will be in Hartley-Brewer's world.
Almost two hours later, it doesn't seem to have done.
As RL said it isn't worth trying to 'battle' with you. You obviously have much time on your hands, more than I do.
As I said earlier
Why do you look for a conspiracy that isn't there?
Out of interest is there a country in the world (or a different political party in the UK), where the Government comes anywhere near the perfection you desire?
Going into battle with you PoM is like the first faint stirrings of a summer breeze meeting a raging tornado head-on!
Tin hats and body armour won’t do - the only answer is just to dig a hole and stay there until the danger has passed. But still an impressive sight - if you live to see it!!
So I am not even going to argue with you (would that I dare!) but simply say I was glad Margaret Thatcher was accorded the funeral she was. How mean-spirited this country would have looked and how astonished much of the rest of the world would have been had this not been done.
The 'did Thatcher deserve the funeral' is a different argument, so there's no need to ring-up for a referee over that.
As for the cost well who apart from the hated right-wing press appeared to complain much about the price of the AV referendum imposed upon us by the Lib Dems now running fourth in the opinion polls.
This is the beef now. How quick some quarters are to justify and support some spending but criticise others, to the point where the even the principle of state spending is the basis for ideology? How many times has Ferrari or Hartley-Brewer asked 'why should I, or the taxpayer, pay for x, y or z?' But when it's something that matters to them, money's no object. It's the hypocrisy of it.
On the same note, I'm not sure whether it's hypocritical for Thatcher detractors/left wing/'fans of big state'/whatever to ask why the person who practically embodies the notion of privatisation and the 'anti-state' wanted a massive ceremonial funeral like this, part-paid for by the taxpayer during a time when we constantly hear the need for austerity.
The 6p pp argument is unhelpful and even misleading as it can be applied to all kinds of things that people now using that argument would deny on a daily basis.
I am sure you would have been the first to shout if it had cost £10m which had been suggested. The fact that it cost considerably less than that; you should be pleased.
You didn't mention that the Thatcher family are making a contribution to this, so the actual cost to the taxpayer is even less.
The reason why they could not give a figure beforehand was because of contingency plans. If there had been a lot of demonstrations or something untoward happened this may have increased the costs.
Why do you look for a conspiracy that isn't there?
If you feel you should not be making a contribution, please send me your address and I will send you 6p in return, I would hate to think you are being hard-done-by.
The jury is still out on that one with many who cannot believe the figures quoted. Also Thatcher family paid NOWHERE near half. Only the flowers and the funeral director costs. I am a man of principle and on principle resent the 6p, however another principle comes into play as well so I will not be wanting your 6p, thanks, however for the offer. If the family had any decency whatsoever they would have had a quiet family funeral with maybe a memorial service for interested public if required. :mad:
Hartley-Brewer completely misrepresenting why people go to foodbanks. It's all their fault, apparently because they've not turned up to workfare &c. No mention of people in between benefits through changing to JSA to ESA and vice versa, people made redundant and their claims not having gone through yet, or even - gasp - DWP cock-ups &c.
No, it's all the fault of the people on benefits themselves. It always will be in Hartley-Brewer's world.
As if you'd ever expect the 4 wheel drive woman to say anything else, but I ceased listening to her pretty quickly.. The only right -wing presenter on LBC whom I've been warming to over the months is Ian Collins. He's a particularly good listen when he has guests like Peter Tatchell in the studio who's happy to haul Collins over the coals when he gets a bit carried away with his right wing diatribe. But I like Collin's slightly off-the-wall take on current affairs compared to the usual predictable, clichéd outpourings by other presenters.
I am a man of principle and on principle resent the 6p, however another principle comes into play as well so I will not be wanting your 6p, thanks, however for the offer.
Almost two hours later, it doesn't seem to have done.
That doesn't mean it wasn't a reasonable question given the way the 'memory hole' operates on these boards.
As RL said it isn't worth trying to 'battle' with you.
There's no 'battling' going on. And, whatever Radio Lady said, it didn't actually responding to me either and it's not stopped her from exchanging with me before. If you don't want me posting at all, Martin, I'm sure you've got it in you to have me banned outright.
You obviously have much time on your hands, more than I do.
Not sure how this is relevant. I can guarantee that, on other days, I will have less time on my hands than you. What's the point of starting to engage and then saying 'I've not got time for this'?
As I said earlier
Out of interest is there a country in the world (or a different political party in the UK), where the Government comes anywhere near the perfection you desire?
I'm not sure how that's relevant either. It's a strange question, not to mention a strawman. Where have I stated that 'I desire a perfect government'? You appear to be claiming that I've (naively) done this. I don't expect any government to be perfect. Given the political and economic system we live in, I just expect governments to treat its people equally wherever they live in the country and whoever they are. Hardly the same as 'perfection'.
Edit: PS You haven't asked for your 6p back
Yes, I purposely avoided answering it because I thought it was a bit childish, to be honest. I'm only responding to it now because you've pressed the point. Do you want an emoticon with that?
If you don't want me posting at all, Martin, I'm sure you've got it in you to have me banned outright.
I am not a mod. I have no power to ban you or anybody else from posting.
Given the political and economic system we live in, I just expect governments to treat its people equally wherever they live in the country and whoever they are. Hardly the same as 'perfection'.
Okay, I will rephrase that for you. Does any government, in your opinion, "treat its people equally wherever they live in the country and whoever they are"
Okay, I will rephrase that for you. Does any government, in your opinion, "treat its people equally wherever they live in the country and whoever they are"
No, I don't. But, again, I'm not sure how that's relevant.
It was not supposed to be relevant to anything in particular. Just a general observation because of your strong views.
I'm not sure where you're going with this to be honest, Martin. I'm not advocating we live in China, Cuba, the USSR &c or wherever left wing people are meant to proffer as political paradises. Neither does not having a handy political template I can point to preclude me from voicing political opinions.
You think I've got 'strong views' - although I'd suggest if you're not angry, you're not paying attention - but I'm actually realistic. If we are to live in this particular political economic and political system, is it really asking too much for there to be parity across different regions across the country, that people are treated fairly and equally? These things hardly amount to 'pie in the sky' political perfection.
So I am not even going to argue with you (would that I dare!) but simply say I was glad Margaret Thatcher was accorded the funeral she was. How mean-spirited this country would have looked and how astonished much of the rest of the world would have been had this not been done.
Hi
I don't agree with this argument. I don't think the rest of the world gives two hoots, to be honest.
The bottom line for me is that no other PM has had this kind of funeral (barring you-know-who, but that was his wartime efforts). Thatcher didn't do anything so special that she deserved this more than all the other ex-PM's who die. The most exceptional thing she did was force the country in a certain direction, which made her 'marmite' As such, I think it was especially wrong to afford her that funeral.
Comments
Also, the 'only cost 6p' angle is a weird one. I've heard him attack this line of questioning in the past when callers have proffered it (along with Hartley-Hare-Brewer &c) as a matter of principle: 'I don't care how little it costs, why should I pay for [insert Daily Mail bogeyman]?'
Funny how the argument suits when something matters to someone personally, isn't it?
Thanks for that.
Once again, you've hit the nail right on the head.
I think there may be a few LBC presenters (and dare I also say callers) who could do with thinking about that!
It's also interesting how often 'pub bores' fit into the Clarkson/Ferrari/Littlejohn paradigm.
As for Brian Cox, I'm seeing him tonight at a private opening of the new Natural History wing of Manchester Museum. Klang! (the sound of a name dropping!)
I am sure you would have been the first to shout if it had cost £10m which had been suggested. The fact that it cost considerably less than that; you should be pleased.
You didn't mention that the Thatcher family are making a contribution to this, so the actual cost to the taxpayer is even less.
The reason why they could not give a figure beforehand was because of contingency plans. If there had been a lot of demonstrations or something untoward happened this may have increased the costs.
Why do you look for a conspiracy that isn't there?
If you feel you should not be making a contribution, please send me your address and I will send you 6p in return, I would hate to think you are being hard-done-by.
"Is anyone man enough to phone in and say that Lady Thatcher wasn't worth this amount?"
Switched off immediately.
The language of a hypocritical bully. Whatever it cost, it would have been better spent on the living. As PoM said earlier, NF is only defending this because he liked Mrs T - had it been spent on 101 other things, he would have been railing against it.
Which, I suspect, was the whole point of spreading that rumour in the first place. Imply that the cost will be enormous and then come back with something that is considerably less and pretend that they did it on a shoestring.
You're wildly missing the point - intentionally or unintentionally.
I didn't mention that the Thatcher foundation have contributed because it wasn't relevant to the point I was making. I have mentioned this elsewhere though; it's not something I was wasn't aware of.
Wait a minute, the argument about policing costs from Ferrari, the right wing press et al is that the police were already being paid as they were on duty anyway, it was a cost already accounted for. This was a point repeatedly used before and after the funeral. It can't be argued both ways.
Also, care to address that the figure that people were angry about, whether it's £10m or £8m, was used in Thatcher-sympathetic press like the Daily Mail (who incidentally started a petition for a full state funeral, seemingly the when they felt it necessary to go 'but Blair and Brown said it was OK to spend this money!'
Order of events:
1. Newspapers, including right-wing Thatcher supporters and LBC presenters (overlap of demographics there) push these high figures out into the public.
2. Detractors get angry (apparently, 'there's no money left' as we keep being told).
3. Costs are defended repeatedly by same newspapers: police already on duty, best woman who ever sat down to piss and deserves it &c and, besides, New Labour okayed the funeral. It's all New Labour's fault!
5. Government say they won't release proper figures (although they've got a very good idea considering they've already repeatedly pointed out the police, armed services and intelligence are already getting paid, they know cost of the service &c). Detractors suspicious and curious as unless they fly in helicopters, drones and tanks, the cost won't rise that much.
6. Government then release actual cost which is a lot less than figures used by right wing press &c.
7. Same right wing press now saying what's the fuss about regarding the fuss they created.
8. The hard of thinking like Ferrari et al talk nonsense and act smug as if they had nothing to do with it.
In other news, the Daily Mail continues its public campaign to 'do something' about these 'internet trolls' who spread misinformation to antagonise and create unnecessary reactions.
Will my post mysteriously vanish now, Martin?
InB4 'bollocks' with a link:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2307764/Margaret-Thatcher-funeral-David-Cameron-defends-10m-bill.html
Ah - la vie du nord !
Yeah, imagine! One of the biggest cities in the country having a museum! Who'd have thought it?
Tin hats and body armour won’t do - the only answer is just to dig a hole and stay there until the danger has passed. But still an impressive sight - if you live to see it!!
So I am not even going to argue with you (would that I dare!) but simply say I was glad Margaret Thatcher was accorded the funeral she was. How mean-spirited this country would have looked and how astonished much of the rest of the world would have been had this not been done.
As for the cost well who apart from the hated right-wing press appeared to complain much about the price of the AV referendum imposed upon us by the Lib Dems now running fourth in the opinion polls.
They should have thought long and hard on the words attributed to one A. Lincoln
“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time”.
No, it's all the fault of the people on benefits themselves. It always will be in Hartley-Brewer's world.
Almost two hours later, it doesn't seem to have done.
As RL said it isn't worth trying to 'battle' with you. You obviously have much time on your hands, more than I do.
As I said earlier
Out of interest is there a country in the world (or a different political party in the UK), where the Government comes anywhere near the perfection you desire?
Edit: PS You haven't asked for your 6p back
The 'did Thatcher deserve the funeral' is a different argument, so there's no need to ring-up for a referee over that.
This is the beef now. How quick some quarters are to justify and support some spending but criticise others, to the point where the even the principle of state spending is the basis for ideology? How many times has Ferrari or Hartley-Brewer asked 'why should I, or the taxpayer, pay for x, y or z?' But when it's something that matters to them, money's no object. It's the hypocrisy of it.
On the same note, I'm not sure whether it's hypocritical for Thatcher detractors/left wing/'fans of big state'/whatever to ask why the person who practically embodies the notion of privatisation and the 'anti-state' wanted a massive ceremonial funeral like this, part-paid for by the taxpayer during a time when we constantly hear the need for austerity.
The 6p pp argument is unhelpful and even misleading as it can be applied to all kinds of things that people now using that argument would deny on a daily basis.
The jury is still out on that one with many who cannot believe the figures quoted. Also Thatcher family paid NOWHERE near half. Only the flowers and the funeral director costs. I am a man of principle and on principle resent the 6p, however another principle comes into play as well so I will not be wanting your 6p, thanks, however for the offer. If the family had any decency whatsoever they would have had a quiet family funeral with maybe a memorial service for interested public if required. :mad:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/household-bills/9403521/Paupers-funerals-increase-as-Government-rejects-half-of-welfare-applicants.html
I wasn't offering it to you
Remind me not to die until my family can afford to bury me
That doesn't mean it wasn't a reasonable question given the way the 'memory hole' operates on these boards.
There's no 'battling' going on. And, whatever Radio Lady said, it didn't actually responding to me either and it's not stopped her from exchanging with me before. If you don't want me posting at all, Martin, I'm sure you've got it in you to have me banned outright.
Not sure how this is relevant. I can guarantee that, on other days, I will have less time on my hands than you. What's the point of starting to engage and then saying 'I've not got time for this'?
I'm not sure how that's relevant either. It's a strange question, not to mention a strawman. Where have I stated that 'I desire a perfect government'? You appear to be claiming that I've (naively) done this. I don't expect any government to be perfect. Given the political and economic system we live in, I just expect governments to treat its people equally wherever they live in the country and whoever they are. Hardly the same as 'perfection'.
Yes, I purposely avoided answering it because I thought it was a bit childish, to be honest. I'm only responding to it now because you've pressed the point. Do you want an emoticon with that?
I am not a mod. I have no power to ban you or anybody else from posting.
Okay, I will rephrase that for you. Does any government, in your opinion, "treat its people equally wherever they live in the country and whoever they are"
No, I don't. But, again, I'm not sure how that's relevant.
It was not supposed to be relevant to anything in particular. Just a general observation because of your strong views.
I'm not sure where you're going with this to be honest, Martin. I'm not advocating we live in China, Cuba, the USSR &c or wherever left wing people are meant to proffer as political paradises. Neither does not having a handy political template I can point to preclude me from voicing political opinions.
You think I've got 'strong views' - although I'd suggest if you're not angry, you're not paying attention - but I'm actually realistic. If we are to live in this particular political economic and political system, is it really asking too much for there to be parity across different regions across the country, that people are treated fairly and equally? These things hardly amount to 'pie in the sky' political perfection.
Hi
I don't agree with this argument. I don't think the rest of the world gives two hoots, to be honest.
The bottom line for me is that no other PM has had this kind of funeral (barring you-know-who, but that was his wartime efforts). Thatcher didn't do anything so special that she deserved this more than all the other ex-PM's who die. The most exceptional thing she did was force the country in a certain direction, which made her 'marmite' As such, I think it was especially wrong to afford her that funeral.