Which PMs/politicians should get a state/ceremonial funeral?

[Alf Bentley]

Whatever your view of Mrs. Thatcher, the decision to give her a near-state funeral was controversial.

Although nominally not a state funeral, it was a very public event, largely state-funded (heavy irony!) with a military parade and the politically-neutral head of state (the Queen) in attendance. This is unprecedented since Winston Churchill, leader of a unified nation at war.

So this begs the question: Which politicians, if any, should get such an honour - and on what basis?

I feel that there should be a big divide between the state (which represents everyone) and political parties, which represent particular views. Particular parties control government and push the state in a particular direction for a while, but they do not represent everyone. So, I think the norm should be for the state to play no part in the funeral of a party leader/ex-PM. It was right that this happened with Attlee. It was wrong that Thatcher's funeral was funded by the state, the state's armed forces paraded and the head of state attended (unless she's going to attend all such funerals).

Does military service have any bearing? While Thatcher or Blair sent others into war, Attlee had a senior military role at Gallipoli (WW1), Macmillan was wounded in WW1 (Somme), Heath met senior Nazis in 1937, opposed appeasement and served in WW2 and Denis Healey served in North Africa and was the military landing officer at Anzio, Italy (WW2)

Votes and comments welcome..

[RobHawk]

To put it bluntly - I think they should have done something which made a hugely positive difference to the outcome of this country. Churchill is the obvious candidate as he led us to victory of a world war!

I don't think thatcher deserved one and i don't think any prime minister since her has either.

They are essentially doing their jobs - and most of the time not very well! Just because they are essentially working for us (the people) doesn't mean they should be entitled to a state funeral! Does any other employer in the UK provide this?

[Zingari]

Keith Vaz should be given a good funeral , and promptly.

[RobHawk]

Keith Vaz should be given a good funeral , and promptly.

DOA!

[Orkneyfox]

The question would always be, would anyone else in that role get a state funeral? As the answer is almost always no then the only person who should get one would be the head of state ie her Maj or one of her direct descendents if they went first. I have no idea why the sainted Diana got a state funeral when she was off dallying with some arab when she died.

[StanSP]

I've heard that all politicians can request a state funeral. It's up to them if they want to rescind that request. So if that is true, it's not a question of if they should or not; it's a question of whether the person in question wants to or not.

[foxesfan1989]

No-one. Any half way decent person would not want tax payers to cover the bill for their funeral. If you want an OTT funeral because you have a massively inflated sense of your own self worth you should make plans to pay for it yourself.

[Alf Bentley]

Seeing as I posted this late last night, before it disappears to page 199 I'll self-indulgently allow myself to "bump" this once only (won't repeat, I promise, Mods!)....

Maybe it's just me being an old-fashioned git, but to me this has an importance beyond the individual (Thatcher).

At a time when public money is scarcer than ever, millions have been spent funding a public celebration of a particular political view. Our supposedly apolitical Queen has been hauled into politics (Churchill and Thatcher, is that all this country is about?). Our professional military, employed to serve the people through the state, have been deployed to celebrate a politician of a particular persuasion, whose actions were loved by some, loathed by many others.....

Maybe the democratic state with its checks and balances is now an outdated concept? Provided we work as many hours as we can for as "competitive" a pay rate as we can, are awed by celebrities like Maggie and spend as much as we can consuming as customers, maybe that is what life is all about now....?

If so - if democracy and politics have been chucked in the bin - I don't want to be there to see the meltdown when the money finally runs out, and all the atomized consumers can slave and consume no more....

[BoneDog]

No-one. Any half way decent person would not want tax payers to cover the bill for their funeral. If you want an OTT funeral because you have a massively inflated sense of your own self worth you should make plans to pay for it yourself.

I agree with this.

Maybe in exceptional circumstances if we had a miracle worker PM whose death caused a major outpouring of grief within the country I'd consider a state funeral. Other than that I think it's a bit cheeky to tell taxpayers they're forking out millions for a funeral - especially in desperate financial times such as these.

[Jon the Hat]

The costing of these events is all bullshit anyway. The Police would have been needed anyway for a private Thatcher funeral.

[Alf Bentley]

The costing of these events is all bullshit anyway. The Police would have been needed anyway for a private Thatcher funeral.

Certainly, some police would have been needed for security at a private funeral, but a lot fewer than for a public parade across the capital city. 700 troops would certainly not have been required for a private funeral...and there are presumably all sorts of extra costs associated with the Queen being in attendance.

I accept that some of those costs would have been "paper costs", just allocating costs to budget headings, but if the extra police/troops weren't there on overtime, then presumably they were diverted from other work that they could have been doing. I also accept that up to £10m for the funeral costs is peanuts compared to the billions spent, taxed and owed in public debt. But this is a government seeking to save public money wherever it can, even at the cost of great hardship, isn't it?

My main objection isn't financial, though, it is constitutional. The tradition was that PMs didn't get a state or pseudo-state funeral, attended by the head of state and serviced by the military wing of the state, which should belong to all of us. The only post-war exception was for Churchill - a reasonable exception. The government has set a precedent - and a party political one. If it had been Blair or Attlee who had just died, I really don't think they'd have got a pseudo-state funeral like that!

I also feel that there's something very wrong about laying on all those military trappings for Thatcher (or indeed for Blair), but not for those who made a real military sacrifice (including Attlee, Macmillan, Heath & Healey).

When Blair's turn comes, if there's a Labour government, I hope that they'll show a bit more sensitivity and will not opt to have a massive parade through the streets, but will keep things private for those who really knew him, plus appropriate foreign political representatives. This stinks, Jon, and if the funeral had been for Blair or Attlee, I suspect that you'd have agreed.

Here's Oborne's excellent Telegraph article again, for anyone who missed it: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatcher/9984619/Margaret-Thatcher-This-is-a-state-funeral-and-thats-a-mistake.html

[Houdini Logic]

No-one. Any half way decent person would not want tax payers to cover the bill for their funeral. If you want an OTT funeral because you have a massively inflated sense of your own self worth you should make plans to pay for it yourself.

Saved me typing!

[Trav Le Bleu]

The costing of these events is all bullshit anyway. The Police would have been needed anyway for a private Thatcher funeral.

A private Thatcher funeral wouldn't have trailed it's way through miles of central London. Certainly many fewer police would have been needed.

[Zingari]

The costing of these events is all bullshit anyway. The Police would have been needed anyway for a private Thatcher funeral.

I don't know where they get a lot of these figures.

A friend of mine had been in the A&E until 3 in the morning and the doc discharged him .

He asked if they could they arrange some sort of transport to take him home as he was still feeling pretty badly shaken and sore.

The Doc says it costs 300 quid to use an ambulance to take someone home and they only do it in exceptional circunstances ( what they are he didn't say)

How the fook do you arrive at 300 quid to stake someone home about 5 miles away ?

You could rent a stretch limo for the night for that!!

[davieG]

I don't know where they get a lot of these figures.

A friend of mine had been in the A&E until 3 in the morning and the doc discharged him .

He asked if they could they arrange some sort of transport to take him home as he was still feeling pretty badly shaken and sore.

The Doc says it costs 300 quid to use an ambulance to take someone home and they only do it in exceptional circunstances ( what they are he didn't say)

How the fook do you arrive at 300 quid to stake someone home about 5 miles away ?

You could rent a stretch limo for the night for that!!

Ambulances probably cost £3 billion and have to be replaced every 6 months or 5000 miles.

[theessexfox]

None, ridiculous costs, and very unnecessary.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

Keith Vaz should be given a good funeral , and promptly.

I couldn't agree more.