facility:très très fort

    • Glenda Jackson : En plus de la force du discours, quel anglais !

      un député s’étrangle et jette : "We can’t take it !! [all what you say]

      Glenda Jackson qui termine par un : [thatcher ? A woman ? not on my terms !]

      Les conservateurs se sont offusqués, mais rapidement mouchés par le président de séance.

      Très très fort. Total respect Glenda. Et vous aurez remarqué que c’est [encore] une femme qui parle comme ça.

      Sur Youtube, le speech de Glenda Jackson vu plus d’un million de fois en trois jours, c’est aussi le signe de quelque chose, non ?

    • et The Economist :

      pour mémoire :

      In a policy which became known as the Reagan Doctrine, [Ronald Reagan’s] administration funded “freedom fighters” such as the Contras in Nicaragua, the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, RENAMO in Mozambique, and UNITA in Angola.

      (la citation n’est pas, comme tu l’as deviné, de The Economist, mais rapidement tirée de vikipedia)

    • Glenda Jackson’s speech (repris du lien de @denisb ci-dessous) :

      Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab): It is hardly a surprise that Baroness Thatcher was careless over the soup being poured over Lord Howe, given that she was perfectly prepared to send him out to the wicket with a broken bat.

      When I made my maiden speech in this Chamber, a little over two decades ago, Margaret Thatcher had been elevated to the other place but Thatcherism was still wreaking, and had wrought for the previous decade, the most heinous social, economic and spiritual damage upon this country, upon my constituency and upon my constituents. Our local hospitals were running on empty. Patients were staying on trolleys in corridors. I tremble to think what the death rate among pensioners would have been this winter if that version of Thatcherism had been fully up and running this year. Our schools, parents, teachers, governors, even pupils, seemed to spend an inordinate amount of time fundraising in order to be able to provide basic materials such as paper and pencils. The plaster on our classroom walls was kept in place by pupils’ art work and miles and miles of sellotape. Our school libraries were dominated by empty shelves and very few books; the books that were there were held together by the ubiquitous sellotape and off-cuts from teachers’ wallpaper were used to bind those volumes so that they could at least hang together.

      By far the most dramatic and heinous demonstration of Thatcherism was certainly seen not only in London, but across the whole country in metropolitan areas where every single night, every single shop doorway became the bedroom, the living room and the bathroom for the homeless. They grew in their thousands, and many of those homeless people had been thrown out on to the streets as a result of the closure of the long-term mental hospitals. We were told it was going to be called —it was called—“care in the community”, but what it was in effect was no care in the community at all.

      I was interested to hear about Baroness Thatcher’s willingness to invite those who had nowhere to go for Christmas; it is a pity that she did not start building more and more social housing, after she entered into the right to buy, so that there might have been fewer homeless people than there were. As a friend of mine said, during her era, London became a city that Hogarth would have recognised—and, indeed, he would.

      In coming to the basis of Thatcherism, I come to the spiritual part of what I regard as the desperately wrong track down which Thatcherism took this country. We were told that everything I had been taught to regard as a vice—and I still regard them as vices—was, in fact, under Thatcherism, a virtue: greed, selfishness, no care for the weaker, sharp elbows, sharp knees, all these were the way forward. We have heard much, and will continue to hear over next week, about the barriers that were broken down by Thatcherism, the establishment that was destroyed.

      What we have heard, with the words circling around like stars, is that Thatcher created an aspirational society. It aspired for things. One former Prime Minister who had himself been elevated to the House of Lords, spoke about selling off the family silver and people knowing in those years the price of everything and the value of nothing. What concerns me is that I am beginning to see what might be the re-emergence of that total traducing of what I regard as the spiritual basis of this country where we do care about society, where we do believe in communities, where we do not leave people and walk by on the other side. That is not happening now, but if we go back to the heyday of that era, I fear that we will see replicated yet again the extraordinary human damage from which we as a nation have suffered and the talent that has been totally wasted because of the inability genuinely to see the individual value of every single human being.

      My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) referred to the fact that although she had differed from Lady Thatcher in her policies, she felt duty bound to come here to pay tribute to the first woman Prime Minister this country had produced. I am of a generation that was raised by women, as the men had all gone to war to defend our freedoms. They did not just run a Government; they ran a country. The women whom I knew, who raised me and millions of people like me, who ran our factories and our businesses, and who put out the fires when the bombs dropped, would not have recognised their definition of womanliness as incorporating an iconic model of Margaret Thatcher. To pay tribute to the first Prime Minister denoted by female gender, okay; but a woman? Not on my terms.

      Sir Tony Baldry: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The conventions of the House in respect of those rare occasions on which the House chooses to make tributes to a person who has been deceased are well established. This is not, and has never been, a general debate on the memory of the person who has been deceased, but an opportunity for tributes. It is not an opportunity for hon. Members to denigrate the memory of the person who has been deceased.

      Mr Speaker : The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. I am grateful to him for his—I use the term advisedly —attempted point of order. Let me be explicit for the benefit both of the hon. Gentleman and of the House.

      All hon. and right hon. Members take responsibility for what they say in this place. The responsibility of the Chair is to ensure that nothing unparliamentary occurs. Let me assure the hon. Gentleman, for the avoidance of doubt, that nothing unparliamentary has occurred. We are debating a motion that says that this House has considered the matter of tributes to the Baroness Thatcher. That is what we are doing, and nothing has got in the way of that.

    • C’est dommage, c’est incomplet, il manque des passages très forts et très importants, toute la fin par exemple. Quelle est ta source ?

      Et ce que dit le conservateur et le président de séance après, c’est aussi très intéressant. Peut-être trouvera-t-on le transcript sur le site du parlement.


      En dépit de ce que suggèrent les lazzi des parlementaires conservateurs présents dans la salle, Jackson a soigneusement respecté les convenances, ne critiquant celle que l’on qualifie de « méchante sorcière » ou de « dame de fer » selon le souvenir plus ou moins cuisant qu’on en garde, que sur ses positions politiques, lui reprochant sa brutalité ainsi que son apologie du comportement sociopathe où, comme chez Mandeville (1670 – 1733), les vertus sont présentées comme des vices et les vices, comme des vertus, vantant la cupidité et prônant le matérialisme à outrance. Jackson, fille de maçon, a rappelé l’Angleterre de son enfance : une société soucieuse de l’autre, protégée de la clochardisation que l’on observe aujourd’hui, société entièrement réglée par les femmes, les hommes étant alors mobilisés sur d’autres fronts, soulignant le rôle joué par Thatcher de femme politique à l’usage exclusif des hommes politiques. « Une femme sans doute, a-t-elle conclu, mais pas selon la définition que j’en donnerais moi ».

      Il est d’autant plus intéressant de rapprocher la critique à fleurets relativement mouchetés de Glenda Jackson de la manière dont Germaine Greer avait choisi elle de critiquer Margaret Thatcher dans un article paru dans le quotidien The Guardian en avril 2009. Germaine Greer, personnage-clé de la révolution féministe, auteur en 1970 de « The Female Eunuch » : l’eunuque femelle, avait adopté un tout autre angle d’attaque, décrivant l’ancien premier ministre britannique, non pas comme une idéologue mais beaucoup plus banalement comme une personnalité corrompue, qui avait construit une image du monde favorisant ses propres intérêts immédiats et beaucoup plus souvent encore, ceux de son fils Mark Thatcher (« vérité » lisible en surface de sa mère, selon Greer), personnage à la moralité extrêmement souple qui, à une époque, fit carrière d’usurier en Afrique du Sud et fut condamné en 2004 à une amende d’un demi-million de dollars pour une tentative de coup d’État en Guinée Équatoriale.