Margaret Thatcher's Funeral

Happyman42

Rascasse wrote: »

Sorry to drag this back on topic, but as expected the cost of Thatchers funeral was grossly exaggerated by the left wing press. Total cost of £3.6m pounds. £1.6m for the service and £2m for police pay.

This doesn't take into account how many of those police would have been working anyway, so that £2m in reality would be less.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/4903067/Thatcher-funeral-cost-just-36m-a-THIRD-of-reported-figure.html

The 'estimates' where based on the funerals of the Granny Winsdor and Diana, which Cameron said would be similar to Thatchers. HE said it, not the left wing press, they just reacted. Those funerals cost 7.6m and 8.9 million respectively, so, adding on the extra security measures that had to be taken and an estimate of 10 million was reasonable and sensible. Is there a breakdown of the costs? because I think somebody is telling porkies or being economical with the truth.
Police removed from their normal duties are a direct cost to the funeral as they are not doing their 'normal duties' same as army and other security personnel.

Rascasse

Happyman42 wrote: »

The 'estimates' where based on the funerals of the Granny Winsdor and Diana, which Cameron said would be similar to Thatchers. HE said it, not the left wing press, they just reacted.

Do you have a link to that? I know he said she would have a ceremonial funeral, as did the Queen Mother and Diana, but it was clear from the outset that Thatchers arrangements were nowhere near as grand. The government even called the costs fantasy at the time. http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-04-14/francis-maude-defends-thatcher-funeral-costs/

Happyman42 wrote: »

Those funerals cost 7.6m and 8.9 million respectively, so, adding on the extra security measures that had to be taken and an estimate of 10 million was reasonable and sensible. Is there a breakdown of the costs? because I think somebody is telling porkies or being economical with the truth.

Adding extra security measures? There were vastly less security measures as there was a shorter route, no lying in state and vastly smaller crowds. Funny how many left wingers on twitter are also saying it's lies no matter how obvious the £10m figure was clearly picked from the sky.

Full breakdown:
Ceremony £500,000
Police and Security: £1,100,000
Police 'Opportunity' Costs: £2,000,000
(Opportunity costs is the cost of Police assigned to the funeral who would have been working anyway).

Happyman42 wrote: »

Police removed from their normal duties are a direct cost to the funeral as they are not doing their 'normal duties' same as army and other security personnel.

And that cost is included above, though many of them would have been local to Whitehall and Westminster where the procession took place, so they wouldn't have been doing too much different.

Happyman42

Rascasse wrote: »

Do you have a link to that? I know he said she would have a ceremonial funeral, as did the Queen Mother and Diana, but it was clear from the outset that Thatchers arrangements were nowhere near as grand. The government even called the costs fantasy at the time. http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-04-14/francis-maude-defends-thatcher-funeral-costs/


Adding extra security measures? There were vastly less security measures as there was a shorter route, no lying in state and vastly smaller crowds. Funny how many left wingers on twitter are also saying it's lies no matter how obvious the £10m figure was clearly picked from the sky.

Full breakdown:
Ceremony £500,000
Police and Security: £1,100,000
Police 'Opportunity' Costs: £2,000,000
(Opportunity costs is the cost of Police assigned to the funeral who would have been working anyway).

And that cost is included above, though many of them would have been local to Whitehall and Westminster where the procession took place, so they wouldn't have been doing too much different.

No I can't find a direct quote, but once the details where announced, comparisons where immediately made. It was an unprecedented funeral for a PM and will cause problems in the future.

Not that it is a big deal, (as governments the world over massage the real figures on almost everything they do, including here) but security measures where intense for this event, from the moment she died, in a way that they didn't have to be for GW and D.

I still think someone is telling porkies, we'll never know the real cost because it would play into the hands of the 'enemy'.

Rascasse

Happyman42 wrote: »

No I can't find a direct quote, but once the details where announced, comparisons where immediately made.

You can't find a quote as he never said anything of it being in a similar vein to the previous two ceremonial funerals. It was quite clear that it wasn't going to be a big ostentatious event like the other two.

Happyman42 wrote: »

It was an unprecedented funeral for a PM and will cause problems in the future.

Now you really are showing that you haven't a clue. Churchill had a very large scale state funeral and other remarkable Prime Ministers have had (or were offered) state funerals. It will cause no problems in the future at all.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Not that it is a big deal, (as governments the world over massage the real figures on almost everything they do, including here) but security measures where intense for this event, from the moment she died, in a way that they didn't have to be for GW and D.

I still think someone is telling porkies, we'll never know the real cost because it would play into the hands of the 'enemy'.

Ah the good old conspiracy theories. There was no massaging of any figures. All the sums would have been done by civil servants in the cabinet office, not political appointees. If there had been any massaging (which is impossible) the true numbers would have leaked from the Met or a civil servant within the hour.

As I've already told you, security measures for this funeral were far smaller than those for Diana or the Queen Mother as there was a shorter route, much fewer people attending, and it was over in 90 minutes rather than 5 days.

Happyman42

Rascasse wrote: »

You can't find a quote as he never said anything of it being in a similar vein to the previous two ceremonial funerals. It was quite clear that it wasn't going to be a big ostentatious event like the other two.

A full ceremonial funeral with full military honours is what it was being called. No accident that people estimated the cost to be 10 million. All media, right and left was estimating the cost at 10m. Even the right wing Daily Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2306155/Margaret-Thatcher-funeral-date-plans-Wednesday-April-17-St-Pauls-Queen-WILL-attend.html
It is to every body's benefit that it only cost 3.5 (allegedly)

Now you really are showing that you haven't a clue. Churchill had a very large scale state funeral and other remarkable Prime Ministers have had (or were offered) state funerals. It will cause no problems in the future at all.

Churchill was given a State funeral because of his concensus rule during WW11, the only 20th century PM to have one. State funerals are only given by order of Parliment after a debate (the reason why Thatcher didn't want one, she couldn't bear what might be said.)The problem and precedent that Thatchers funeral set is in relation to Mrs Winsor's attendance, that broke protocol, it will be interesting to see what happens when the next PM pops their clogs.

Ah the good old conspiracy theories. There was no massaging of any figures. All the sums would have been done by civil servants in the cabinet office, not political appointees. If there had been any massaging (which is impossible) the true numbers would have leaked from the Met or a civil servant within the hour.

Oh right, governments can't tell lies or be economical with the truth? Good luck with that one. I think history tells us that the 'conspiracy theorists' have gotten one right! :cool:

As I've already told you, security measures for this funeral were far smaller than those for Diana or the Queen Mother as there was a shorter route, much fewer people attending, and it was over in 90 minutes rather than 5 days.

It has been planned for 5 years, the security operation was massive in the lead up because she was so divisive. Who offered a threat to Diana's funeral or Granny Windsor? You are codding yourself if you believe that serious money wasn't invested in the operation to get her buried.

robroy1234

When it comes to the actual costs for the British upper and ruling class the British Government purposely gives false amounts, the same goes with the royal civil list. It has been long known that the British Government excludes vast amounts of tax payers money that goes to the royals etc., in order to make them look like value for money. Instead the Brits are living well beyond their means and cannot afford the royals, the lords and the entire ruling establishment. The big worry for the Brits would be when queen lizzy kicks the bucket because not only the expense of her state funeral but the UK will have 5 years to change all currency with her image on it as well change in official documentation, signage, stamps etc.,
But, that is their problem and nothing to do with us here in the Republic...

Fratton Fred

robroy1234 wrote: »

When it comes to the actual costs for the British upper and ruling class the British Government purposely gives false amounts, the same goes with the royal civil list. It has been long known that the British Government excludes vast amounts of tax payers money that goes to the royals etc., in order to make them look like value for money. Instead the Brits are living well beyond their means and cannot afford the royals, the lords and the entire ruling establishment. The big worry for the Brits would be when queen lizzy kicks the bucket because not only the expense of her state funeral but the UK will have 5 years to change all currency with her image on it as well change in official documentation, signage, stamps etc.,
But, that is their problem and nothing to do with us here in the Republic...

judging by your posts on this and other threads, it appears you do have a serious problem with it.

MadsL

robroy1234 wrote: »

When it comes to the actual costs for the British upper and ruling class the British Government purposely gives false amounts, the same goes with the royal civil list. It has been long known that the British Government excludes vast amounts of tax payers money that goes to the royals etc., in order to make them look like value for money. Instead the Brits are living well beyond their means and cannot afford the royals, the lords and the entire ruling establishment. The big worry for the Brits would be when queen lizzy kicks the bucket because not only the expense of her state funeral but the UK will have 5 years to change all currency with her image on it as well change in official documentation, signage, stamps etc.,
But, that is their problem and nothing to do with us here in the Republic...

Why? I remember shillings doing the rounds with George V's head on them before decimalisation in 1972 (yes that old) still legal tender.

robroy1234

I have no problem with the Brits at all, only the exception when they complain about their failing economy and yet have an upper class they are paying for, and then they come here and complain even more so.