Margaret Thatcher dies

[Bryn]

Three cheers, and then three more for glorious Glenda!

[amateur51]

Three cheers, and then three more for glorious Glenda!

That was telling them

[MrGongGong]

Three cheers, and then three more for glorious Glenda!

GO Glenda indeed

Nice to see an actor deviating from the script

[Flosshilde]

Three cheers, and then three more for glorious Glenda!

Couldn't agree more

As I said above, why go to the expence of recalling Parliament to indulge in several hours of .... (fill in with your preferred phrase) (except, of course, for shining examples like Glenda). There are perfectly good websites that do the same thing.

[Beef Oven]

Good old Glenda hasn't been seen or heard of in some years now. I wonder whether this tirade was Glenda's idea to get back in the lime-light or her agent's. Some people cannot grow old gracefully.

[Pabmusic]

Glenda Jackson's speech was well constructed and to-the-point. This passage in particular sums up much of what I feel about the Thatcher era:

But the basis to Thatcherism - and this is where I come to the spiritual part of what I regard as the desperate, desperately wrong track that Thatcherism took this country into - was that everything I had been taught to regard as a vice - and I still regard them as vices - under Thatcherism was in fact a virtue: greed, selfishness, no care for the weaker, sharp elbows, sharp knees. They were the way forward.

It would be nice to think that we have passed that era - I think we may have - but is it too far-fetched to see that the cynicism and uncaring nature of 1980s politics contained the seeds of our subsequent disenchantment with politics of any flavour?

[scottycelt]

Good old Glenda hasn't been seen or heard of in some years now. I wonder whether this tirade was Glenda's idea to get back in the lime-light or her agent's. Some people cannot grow old gracefully.

Indeed. I saw part of her "speech" on TV later. The hatred and bitterness deeply etched on her face was evident for all to see. Those others who couldn't stand Thatcher wisely and correctly chose to stay away. They weren't confined to the Left. It was noted that Lords Heseltine & Lawson were conspicuously missing from the Lords tribute.

Jackson, quite obviously, simply couldn't resist the temptation to take advantage of the empty benches surrounding her by successfully 'catching the eye' of the Speaker, and then appearing to challenge the absent Denis Skinner for the title of the most snarlingly contorted face in the House of Commons.

[MrGongGong]

But the basis to Thatcherism - and this is where I come to the spiritual part of what I regard as the desperate, desperately wrong track that Thatcherism took this country into - was that everything I had been taught to regard as a vice - and I still regard them as vices - under Thatcherism was in fact a virtue: greed, selfishness, no care for the weaker, sharp elbows, sharp knees. They were the way forward.

Well put indeed.........

[Richard Barrett]

Jackson, quite obviously, simply couldn't resist the temptation to take advantage of the empty benches surrounding her by successfully 'catching the eye' of the Speaker, and then appearing to challenge the absent Denis Skinner for the title of the most snarlingly contorted face in the House of Commons.

You may not like her face but everything she said was true.

[Julien Sorel]

You may not like her face but everything she said was true.

Meanwhile

The committee, which had its first formal meeting on Tuesday, will convene every day between now and next Wednesday’s funeral.

The “True Blue committee” brings together MI5, National Security Secretariat, the police, Buckingham Palace, the Church of England, the Parliamentary authorities, Government departments and representatives of Lady Thatcher’s estate.

MI5 and the National Security Secretariat are represented on the Whitehall committee responsible for “Operation True Blue”, the code name for the plans for the former prime minister’s funeral, which will take place next Wednesday.

It emerged that personnel from Armed Forces units that played a key role in the Falklands conflict will feature in the funeral procession, with more than 800 lining the route from the Palace of Westminster to St Paul’s Cathedral.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatcher/9983231/Operation-True-Blue-Baroness-Thatchers-funeral-plans.html

Ruritania meets North Korea? http://nkleadershipwatch.files.wordp...mm_19dec11.jpg

or just the Establishment version of Reggie Kray's obsequies?

[An_Inspector_Calls]

In one London borough almost half of ex-council properties are now sub-let to tenants.

Tycoon Charles Gow and his wife own at least 40 ex-council flats on one South London estate.

Nothing there that disgusts me. Thatcher didn't pull any social housing down, she simply sold some of the stock into private ownership. The number of houses remained the same. Recalling the sums of money two of my uncles paid for their council houses (after two generations of family occupation) I didn't get the impression they sere sold off cheap either. And it became easy to spot the sold council houses: they were the ones with tidy gardens (no refrigerators), painted woodwork . . .

Why should private landlords be, by definition, worse than public owners? If you claim they are then the system of regulation is failing. But if that is failing (and the regulators will be the local councils) then why should we then think the councils would make a better job than the private landlords. If the private landlords are profiteering, then remove that by regulation.

It would be great if we could believe in the virtues of public ownership of any activity but almost everything government (left or right) touches soon becomes a sink for money badly spent.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Well put indeed.........

Was Glenda talking about Thatcher policies or the behaviour of the unions when she made that point?

[Pabmusic]

Was Glenda talking about Thatcher policies or the behaviour of the unions when she made that point?

She was talking about Thatcherism - perfectly clear from her speech - not about trade unions. Not that there is no point to be made there, but not in the context of Thatcherism or government policy.

[ahinton]

Nothing there that disgusts me. Thatcher didn't pull any social housing down, she simply sold some of the stock into private ownership. The number of houses remained the same. Recalling the sums of money two of my uncles paid for their council houses (after two generations of family occupation) I didn't get the impression they sere sold off cheap either. And it became easy to spot the sold council houses: they were the ones with tidy gardens (no refrigerators), painted woodwork . . .

Why should private landlords be, by definition, worse than public owners? If you claim they are then the system of regulation is failing. But if that is failing (and the regulators will be the local councils) then why should we then think the councils would make a better job than the private landlords. If the private landlords are profiteering, then remove that by regulation.

It would be great if we could believe in the virtues of public ownership of any activity but almost everything government (left or right) touches soon becomes a sink for money badly spent.

Private landlords are entitled to make profits; for that very reason they are, for the most part, unsuitable owners of social housing and not many such landlords would take it on for that very reason. As I observed above, as long as there is a need for social housing, it should be provided by the state. I have nothing against the principle under which people are allowed to purchase their social housing as long as the end result is not a depletion of the housing stock to the point at which a shortage of social housing occurs - and the need for social housing will go up and down always, so an exact figure cannot be predicted. Mrs Thatcher's mistake was not to permit social housing tenants to purchase their homes but to insist that little or no monies be allocated to ensuring that the social housing stock be kept up to standard and be sufficiently available. Of course if the poor got sufficiently richer and the majority of them wanted to purchase their social housing, the need for it would become less; I haven't noticed that state of affairs having come about, however. Oh and, by the way, Mrs Thatcher did not sell "some of the stock into private ownership"; her policies merely enabled social housing tenants to purchase their homes should they so wish.

If, however, private landlords are not, "by definition, worse than public owners", why assume as you do that - presumably again "by definition" - "almost everything government (left or right) touches soon becomes a sink for money badly spent"/ Even to the extent to which this may at times be true, the reason is surely uncontrolled bad management, a factor that knows no public/private boundaries.

[Julien Sorel]

Why should private landlords be, by definition, worse than public owners? If you claim they are then the system of regulation is failing. But if that is failing (and the regulators will be the local councils) then why should we then think the councils would make a better job than the private landlords. If the private landlords are profiteering, then remove that by regulation.

It would be great if we could believe in the virtues of public ownership of any activity but almost everything government (left or right) touches soon becomes a sink for money badly spent.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/housing-network/2011/nov/14/private-rented-sector-control

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmcomloc/writev/953/prs101.htm