Unparliamentary

I have long wondered why it was not Dame Glenda Jackson. I am not wondering that now. But if you are going to have a parliamentary debate, then it has to be about politics. Her speech was not inappropriate. The inappropriate thing is the holding of this debate in the first place.

For that is what it is: a debate on a motion. Altogether out of place. Whereas, since such a thing is happening, the speeches appropriate to such are entirely to be expected. Even encouraged. The motion, simply by having been tabled, cannot but encourage them. Or did the Government truly believe that Thatcher was an uncontroversial figure? She was certainly not uncontroversial among their own upper-class Tories.

Glenda Jackson was only doing what Parliament does; what Parliament is for. That, and not her specific contribution within it, was the thing inappropriate to the occasion. To what was happening, her conduct was entirely appropriate. But it ought not to be happening. Not in this way, at least. Not really at all.

Say what you like about Glenda Jackson, but she entered Parliament after an immensely distinguished career as something else. On retiring at the next General Election, she will be only a few days short of 79, and she will have been an MP for 23 years. So much for luvvies. Unlike all manner of dross brought in by Blair and Cameron (especially, it must be said, female dross), she deserved to be there and she has gone the distance.