18/04/2013 This Week

are ringing out for This Week. # You can ring my bell

# Ring my bell... # As the nation bid a final farewell to Maggie, the

bells of Westminster fell silent out of respect. Journalist and

commentator Andrew Rawnsley was there.

David Cameron says we are all Thatcherites now. Are we? The lady

may have been laid to rest, but the arguments still resonate loudly. As

attention turns to present day politics, we ask whether Ed

Miliband rings anybody's bell. Labour insider and blogger Dan

Hodges thinks Ding Dong it's its election prospects are dead. If the

Labour Leadership think the route to leadership is Number Ten, they

are about to drop one almighty clanger. With protesters on the

streets, what are the rules of decorum when it comes to political

discourse? Etiquette expert and how clean is your house woman join us.

We shouldn't take any nonsense from you this evening. Be warned! This

Evening all. Welcome to This Week. broadcasting live and direct from

our new studios in downtown Pyongyang, having smuggled

ourselves into North Korea this week by attaching ourselves to an

unsuspecting tour party of BBC middle managers keen to learn how

to suck up to the new boss of a one-party state. We claimed to be

respected journalists with an improbable desire to make serious

political television. Amazingly, we got away with it... So far. But if

we are rumbled by the regime, which given our brain-washing and regular

strip searches, Michael seems quite excited by that - an isolated

northern Gulag where human dignity barely exists, and the winds rattle

eerily through the empty vending machines and creative minds of an

entire generation. But that's only if the North Koreans insist on

sending us to the BBC's media city, And I don't think that's going to

happen. The North Koreans may be cruel, but they are not entirely

heartless. Speaking of those who are living in denial and clueless

about the outside world, I'm joined on the sofa tonight by two of

Westminster's most unstable, unreliable regimes. Think of them

as the North Korea and the North Circular of late-night political

chat. I speak, of course, of #wheredidmyseatgo, Jacqui Smith,

and #sadmanonatrain, Michael choo Welcome to you both. Michael, you

were at the funeral. What is your memory? It was a remarkable event.

But George Osborne shed a tear, I shed one myself. When I did, I

thought back to a moment when Margaret Thatcher had resigned, a

number of junior ministers were invited to Downing Street for a

farewell lunch and we got a bit sniffy while there. We came out of

the room where we'd been having lunch and Denis said "I don't know

what you are all crying about, we are not dead, you know" which was a

typical remark, and I thought, perhaps that's now a fact that they

are both dead, we have their permission to shed a tear. Jacqui

Smith? I was happy for it to go ahead in the way that it did. Ben

we got to yesterday, I was happy not to watch it. I was a bit cross,

however, despite being... Even as a spectacle? I did a days' work.All

that beautiful BBC camera work? Sounds like it was well received

and well covered. I thought David Cameron was wrong to take the

opportunity of the day of the funeral to do that, we are all

Thatcherites now line when actually what it was about was almost a

state funeral for somebody who had played an important role.

didn't watch it in protest? To Mr Cameron seeming to politicise it

because he did in a way, didn't he? When everybody had I think

responded pretty well in the weak in the run-up, I thought that was

wrong to do that. We'll send you the DVD. Very nice pictures and

music! Ed Miliband was praised last week for a well judged speech in

the Commons following the death of Margaret Thatcher. With an election

only two years away, he'd no doubt prefer to be praised for his

political strategy. There are plenty who say he could do better.

The past week saw a succession of previous leaders drifting to the

left. He is Ed not doing as well as he thinks he is? We asked Telegraph

insider Dan Hodges for his take of # Weird science

# Weird science... # Before she set her sites on

Westminster, Margaret Thatcher was a chemist and, if you believe in

another popular Thatcher myth, invented Mr Whipy ice-cream. She

knew the right ingredients for bringing her party repeated

electoral success. Ed Miliband, in contrast, and

struggling with his political chemistry, I've been a member of

the Labour Party for the best part of 0 years and I can tell you if he

carries on with the strategy of moving to the left on a range of

issues from the tkphoi welfare, then there's a miniscule chance of

him making it to Downing Street -- the Ed's been having a tough time

of it. Labour's opinion poll ratings you you, his personal

ratings have shown a Lis I think the lack of this, political

magnetism and Tony Blair, and a succession of former Labour Cabinet

Ministers have been lining up to conduct a scathing peer review for

reform of his electoral success. Take welfare. Ed's opposition to a

benefits cap and failure to back the Government on welfare sanctions.

A policy supported by most of the electorate is at best naive and at

worst has the potential to... Blow up in his face.

Then this's the economy. Most voters think our economic problems

are the product of excessive spending and excessive debt.

Labour should be looking for ways of turning down the spending tap,

not ramping things up. The biggest danger for Labour is

that despite all of this, Ed Miliband still doesn't recognise

there's any dangers, hence what his inner circle call the 35% strategy.

They plan to take the votes Labour won in 2010, mix in votes from

disaffected Lib Dems and bingo. Ed's in Number Ten. That's no your

eco moment, just some very weird science.

So it's time to drop the fancy electoral experiments and start

moving the Labour Party back towards the political centre where

elections are won. Come on, Ed! It's not this!

Reminds me of the days when I used to do Tomorrow's World. Dan Hodges

joins us now in our academy in Westminster. Welcome to the

programme. Can I clarify something, Dan. Am I right in saying you don't

think Mr Miliband's going to win in 2015? Well, I mean I don't think

it's likely, if I had to bet. I would bet on a Conservative

majority at the moment. If you look at where Labour is in the opinion

polls at the moment, the lead just isn't big enough. I think you are

starting to see the Tories gradually starting to lock down

some quite important policy areas such as Europe and welfare.

Obviously, the real killer is Labour is still just nowhere on the

park on the economy. I think Labour on the economy now is getting

itself into the sort of position that Labour got itself into defence

in the early 80s, tth it's getting that serious now for Labour. Do you

share Dan's concerns? I share concern Haas the lead we have at

the moment isn't sufficient to get us to a position where we'll win.

So I'm not one of those people that says we can sit back. Where I

differ with Dan is I think that nor do I think is Ed Miliband. There

are some things you said in the piece I agree with and some that I

don't. I think you were harsh on Ed Miliband's position with respect to

welfare. Before Christmas, I wrote a piece that made me fall out with

some members of my party when I made the proint Dan made which is

that we need to nail it down in order to be successful -- point. We

do now have a policy with a jobs guarantee that includes sanctions

if you don't take a job after a time. That was an important step

forward. What is the period of time? Two years.So you can be on

welfare for two years before the sanction hits? The argument being

that the prior thing you need to do is to create more jobs. No-one

would disagree with that. Is that enough of a welfare policy to get

you back on the rails? No, I think welfare is now a disaster area for

the Labour Party frankly. I take on board what Jacqui Smith says but

Labour's got itself into the position where its official Labour

Party policy is to increase benefits but freeze public sector

wages. That's an incomprehensible position for any political party.

Dan doesn't think Labour can win, but you don't think David Cameron

is going to win an outright majority either. Can you both with

right? It's the curious position at the moment that there are good

argument force thinking both parties can't win. The Liberal

Democrats are also absolutely doomed. My argument is that no

party in office increases its share of the vote and the Conservatives,

37% of the vote, is not enough to get a majority. Anthony Eden was

the last to do it.En There's no reason to think there would be a

coalition. So the Conservatives appear to be doomed. In normal

circumstances, you can't increase your vote. And no growth?And the

debt increases. However, I am very familiar with what Dan says and I

think he makes some very good points. I'm familiar with it

because I've seen it from the other side. I was there when William

Hague in particular pursued this core vote policy, this defeatist

policy of only going for people who're already Conservatives and

thinking, well, you know, I'm going to lose the election, but at least

I'll hold on to a particular ramp of the vote and at least I'll have

the support of my newspapers. The one thing Dan leaves out is that

whereas 37% is not good enough for the Conservatives, 35% is almost

good enough for Labour because of the way... Because it got Mr Blair

a majority in 2005? 37.So 36 probably. Jacqui Smith, a lot of

your Blairite colleagues have been criticising the lack of policy many

Miliband has. Is it really policy that worries them or do they think

that really Mr Miliband just doesn't have it. There was a poll

in the Standard today, the MORI poll, Labour's ahead in the polls

in terms of percentage of the vote, but 66% of those asked didn't

believe Mr Miliband was ready to rule the country. Only 24% did.

me be positive and optimistic. That's a better position than he

was in two years ago. That wasn't two years ago. We need to go

through a variety of stages to get yourself into power. You need to

prove that you can oppose. I think Ed's done that. Secondly, you need

to get people to listen to you again and it feels to me, when

knocking on doors, that people are willing to listen. And then, and of

course this is a problem, you can't go into a general election solely

on a critique of the existing Government. People vote at a

general election for the future, not in protest about what's

happening at the moment and yes, the next stage is to make sure that

some of the broad themes Ed has fleshed out are then turned into

policy. That's what policy review is about. Is the problem the lack

of a defying policy a set of policies yet, or, as this poll

British people a particularly clear vision of what he wants to do. He

seems to be taking the Labour Party back to a policy agenda they

rejected decisively in the 1980s. As we've seen again tonight there is an

Independent splash tomorrow saying Labour is going to spend more than

the Tories and the strategy is going to be to spend more than the Tories

in the next election. Now that's being shot down decisively. This is

what happens when you let a policy vacuum develop. You always advised

Mr Cameron on this programme to go into the 2010 election very

policy-light. Yes, I did. After all, he was fighting Gordon Brown after

13 years of Labour Government, and what he needed to do was to get the

sense of the party right. And the sense of the party was to be on the

centre ground. But isn't it Government that lose elections? It

is not oppositions that win. 1992 gives the lie to that. In 1992 we as

the Labour Party faced an extremely unpopular Government but we didn't

have a programme in place. You had a policy to put tax up! Yes, and in

many ways we didn't have a programme that gave that centre ground that

Dan is right to identify. I think the crucial thing about this moment

which Dan has put his finger on is that David Cameron at the moment is

learning. He is moving in the right direction for his party. If anything

Miliband is unlearning, or whatever the expression is. I do take the

view that the Tories are very likely to lose, but that view is being

shaken, because I do think the Tories at the moment are moving in

the right direction and Labour is moving in the wrong direction. It is

not just that Ed Miliband is not associated with the ancien regime of

Gordon Brown but so is Ed Balls. Two people are associated with with the

by-gone age. Should he move Mr Balls before the election? I don't think

he should. It is policy through the policy review and the apologies

which have grated on me for what the last Government did to move yourself

on. It is not simply about the people. You can move that forward

but only if you have a programme that responds to what Tony Blair was

talking about last week, and that is the new questions. Have you got

answers to the new questions and the new challenges? Not simply, can you

represent and be a repository for people's anger? Dan, is it not one

but two Eds? Is one Ed too many? think if Ed Miliband moved Ed Balls

he would fall into the trap. The second Ed balls moved the Tories

will be saying right, there is only one person in the Labour Party

associated with the previous regime and that is Ed Miliband. The Tories

wouldn't like Alistair Darling? I'm not sure about that. I am!I think

the idea of running against the guy who was Chancellor last time is

something they would quite enjoy when it came to it. Tories lying to

me? Who would have thunk it? Dan, thank you.

Now, it is late, Babestation late, and you have no doubt had a skinful

of the old German nectar and are blubbing like a big old Boy Georgy,

Osborne that is. Waiting in the wings a woman with standards who

likes to see things properly. So clearly out of place on this show!

Kim Woodburn is going to talk about decorum in life and politics. You

know where you can find no evidence whatsoever of respectful behaviour?

That's right, Michael's dressling room. But -- Michael's dressing

room, but also on Twitter, Facebook and the Interweb.

Now, we always knew it would be a huge moment. The death of Britain's

first female and longest-serving Prime Minister of modern times

revived many memories, and brought back to life the old political

battle lines of the '80s. "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead" crashed the

charts, but Big Ben fell silent on the morning of the funeral. And in

the end, in London at least, few protesters turned out as her coffin

made its journey through the heart of the capital to St Paul's. So we

sent The Observer's Andrew Rawnsley down to the heart of London's old

East End, to the Whitechapel Bell Foundry, where Big Ben was actually

cast. This is his roundup of the political week. Ask not for whom the

bell tolls, or in this case didn't toll, as one of the many ceremonial

moments for the funeral of Margaret Thatcher, Big Ben, which was cast at

this work shop, was silenced at 10 o'clock yesterday morning. That's

the first time the Great Clock has been deliberately stopped the death

of Winston Churchill. I was in St Paul's, I wanted to be an eyewitness

to the spectacle revolving around a very important historical figure is.

As former Prime Ministers took their places, I couldn't help wondering

what would be bubbling if their heads. Dare Ed Miliband or David

Cameron treatment of winning three elections in a row? Tony Blair did

emulate her hat-trick. I suspect he wouldn't mind a send-off like this.

The occasion had its ironies. . She was a Prime Minister often jaggedly

at odds with the established church, yet she was hymned away by the most

senior prelates in the land and celestial choristers. She was a

Prime Minister ardent for a small estate. Yet here was the state

turned out in its full pomp to perform the rituals that we British

do rather well. The Bishop of London, a rare churchman, because he

is won who Mrs T liked, gave the address, including in it one of her

signature phrases. After the storm of a life lived in the heat of

political controversy, there is a great calm. Today the remains of the

real Margaret Hilda Thatcher are here at her funeral service, lying

here she is one of us, subject to the common destiny of all human

beings. The Bishop was right of course, we are all mortal, the bell

does toll for us all. But he was also wrong. Even in death, and she

would probably relish this, Mrs Thatcher continued to generate red

hot controversy. David Cameron says we are all Thatcherites now. I think

not, Prime Minister. There are communities who deeply feel that too

little respect has been paid to their feelings, that she and her

successors were and are a destructive enemy. One cruel wag

suggested that the Chancellor's eyes were watering at the thought of

having to pay the �10 million bill for the funeral. Founded in the 16th

century, this is Britain's oldest manufacturing company. Survived the

Great Fire of London, world wars, even the coalition. With

unemployment turning upwards again, now even the International Monetary

Fund is saying that George Osborne has overdone the squeeze and is

playing with fire. That's a bit hypocritical coming from the IMF who

originally pressed austerity on everyone. But it was nevertheless

painful to a Chancellor to hear this. There are a few countries

where we think there is enough fiscal space to go further. One

example is the UK, where we think that in the face of very weak

private demand it may be time to consider an adjustment. One of the

interesting things about Mrs Thatcher is that while she did lead

a privatisation revolution by ringing the bell on a lot of

nationalised industries, she didn't fundamentally shave back the size of

Government. A proportion of national wealth consumed by the welfare state

is pretty much the same when she left office as it was when she

arrived there. Her heirs thi they can do what she couldn't- a slew of

benefit changes are beginning to bite right now. . Including the

introduction of a cap on the total amount of benefit any one household

can claim. It is about ensuring that people in work and out of work have

the same choices. The benefit cap is set at 500 a week. It forces people

into temporary accommodation which drive it's up costs, not reduces

them. One of the coalition's bright ideas for lifting the economy is to

loosen the planning laws. The trouble is a lot of Tory MPs are all

in favour of new building just so long as it is nowhere near them.

They've forced Ministers to do that thing which Mrs T so hated, U-turn.

We will bring forward a revised approach on the contentious question

of permitted development rights for home extension when the Bill returns

to the Lords. This has caused a great deal of grief to my District

Council and to many across the country. I'm afraid we are not going

to believe what he says at that dispatch box until we see nit black

and white. What would Mrs Thatcher have thought of that? Love her or

loathe her, she did think she sold people her council houses. This lot

can't even agree the rules on where you can build a conservatory.

Andrew Rawnsley there. Time to move on from the Thatcher

funeral and so on. We've done enough of that for now. Now the news. Bad

unemployment figures. Even the IMF is turning its back on austerity.

Maybe we know why the Chancellor was really crying. The IMF has put

itself in an absurd position. The United Kingdom has the highest

deficit in the European Union. It is heading towards 100% national debt

as a proportion of GDP. I simply don't know what the IMF is talking

about. The British Government has to deal with real markets and the real

markets are lending the British Government money at 2%. They are

lending to the Spanish and the Italians 5%. The difference between

one and the another is a sustainable situation and a catastrophe. The IMF

can pontificate but politicians have to deal with reality. If they shift

from the austerity policy and the Liberal Democrats and the

Conservatives understand this, the markets will punish them. I notice

that all Governments and parties when institutions like the IMF and

the OECD back you, you big them up. When they don't, you dismiss them.

There's a certain amount of that. There were times, certainly at the

beginning, when there was international support for the

austerity programme that the Government was undertaking. But the

point is it has changed. What the Government said the austerity

programme would do has failed to be delivered. Private sector jobs have

not come in to fill the gap left by public sector jobs. I think you will

find that bit has worked, that there's been no growth. There's been

more private sector jobs than public sector jobs. There is has been.

Business investment, which was supposed to be a significant part...

After a run of good figures. Yes, but unemployment is still higher now

than in 2010. Unemployment is higher as well. Business investment isn't

rising as much as it should be. Exports are falling. What was

expected? The fact that austerity was going to help us to pay down

debt has also failed, because we find ourselves in a position where

because of economic failure the Government is having to borrow more

than they planned to. And at the same time we see a big... And so the

answer is more borrowing? The Government having borrowed more than

it planned is to borrow more? The answer is to have a more coherent

approach. Than to have a growth in infrastructure Bill which has let's

bill big conservatories in it which you can't then deliver. You have to

be coherent to convince the British people that we are not going to

become spin, Italy or Heaven forbid Cyprus. Of course you do. Can I

bring in Miranda? It seems to me to be shown by the facts. They may be

right to hang on in there and it will come right, but as of now it

hasn't worked by the Government's on standards. The Liberal Democrats

signed up to this when the coalition was formed. At the time I couldn't

help feeling that their heart wasn't quite in it. They must be getting

real nervous necessarilyies now. knellies now. As Michael said, they

have been rather good figures. In fact there's been a lot of interest

as to how that has been achieved. But now we know that unfortunately

unemployment is going up. I think it is a moment for reflection. Having

said that, I also think that Michael is absolutely right to talk about

necessity. It is not about whether your heart's in it but what's

necessary. You were talking about welfare reform. All of these areas

of policy which are about the fiscal attitude, which is what the IMF is

starting to talk about, it is about what's necessary, not what you want

it? We have seen rebellions in the Lord's on reform already. I think

though, on this particular issue, in a sense, the Labour Party's got

itself in such a mess as it gives the Liberal Democrats a bit of

cover. I think there is a lot of nervousness about the welfare

reform package as we go forward in case there are more cuts that then

bring such a conspicuous suffering that it brings the whole project

into disrepute. So you have got a coalition then

which is getting nervous about both the course of the economic policy

and of a key part of that in budget control welfare? Well, I think

there are two things at stake here. First of all, the whole coalition

programme was to provide stability and then to turn around the economy.

Clearly, whether the economy is turned around or not is the success

or failure on which the whole thing will be judged. On the other hand,

because of the squeeze on public spending, they've had to tackle

long-term problems, some of which are extremely difficult like

reforming a welfare state. You can have stability of the graveyard?

You can indeed. Jacqui, let's assume for the next

minute that you are right on your analysis, Michael's wrong. Why's

your party finding it so difficult to convince the British people that

you are right? Because this goes back to what I

said earlier. You need, first of all, to oppose effectively, but you

don't win an election and don't win people round on the basis of

opposition. We have a reasonable lead in the polls it's fair to say,

but which need to get ourselves into a position where we have an

alternative programme. People, when they vote, choose between

Governments, they don't solely vote at general election to make a

protest. When building more conservatories is the key plank of

the Government's growth strategy, it's getting pretty close to

desperate? It's not a key plank of the Government's policy. This is

co-fn's triumph. Cameron is leading a Government that was voted for by

60% of the population -- Cameron. And he's instigating austerity

measures almost equivalent to Margaret Thatcher's. Welfare

reforms that she would never have dreamt of. Education reforms that

she never touched and health reforms she never touched. He's

doing that, leading a coalition Government. He would never have had

permission from the media to do these reforms if he were leading a

minority Conservative Government. And stupid blinkered Tories think

that he is constrained in what it can do in coalition. Actually, he's

been liberated to do vastly more than he could ever achieve by lead

ago minority. Your party's given him cover to go further? How would

you like to sell that at the Liberal conference? Exactly. That

will not... ALL SPEAK AT ONCEThat will not be a junior coalition

party sales pitch, I can assure you, particularly on the Health Service.

Can I ask you about this terrible bombing in Boston, as a former Home

Secretary? In these circumstances, is it scarier when you don't know

who is behind it? I was lucky that the terrorist attacks that I had

responsibility for were largely foiled, but that point at which you

don't know who is responsible, whether or not this is the

beginning of a potential series of attacks, and we saw a bit of that

this week, didn't we, with the thought that there might be a link

between the ricin letter sent to the President and the Boston

bombings which it appears that there isn't. That lack of knowledge,

you are right, is a very uncertain period. But what you also see very

quickly, it's kicking in, is the expertise of those who're

investigating. And whilst, for my taste, it's been a little leaky, I

have to say in terms of we think we've got this, we've got these, on

the whole, I suspect this is an extremely rigorous investigation

which I certainly hope will bear fruit pretty quickly. The longer it

goes on, the incidents of speculation, we don't know, but the

more it looks has the makings of a home-grown event, rather than an

international terrorist event. Would you agree? I think that's

right, but the people in the stais have been careful not to speculate

on that -- States. There is of course a record in the US. In fact,

there is a greater record of home- grown terrorist attacks,

international terrorism. Pictures have been published tonight by the

FBI on possible suspects and they are up on the web. Miranda, good to

see you again. Thank you very much. You go and work out how to sell

that. Some work to be done.In Glasgow this week your conference

isn't it? Yes.Despite what the BBC handlers think, we know how to

behave here on This Week. We are vaguely aware of where the line is

drawn. If we fall over it on occasion, we blame the Blue None,

it's not our fault. If Molly makes a mess, I have to clear it up, if

Jacqui makes a mess, she clears it up, if Michael makes a mess, his

loyal man servant Fabio will always be on hand to scrub away the stains

and dispose of any incriminating evidence. Oh, yes, he's a lovely

chap. After all, these phone lines didn't just uninstall themselves

did they, did they, did they?! behave in life and politics so. We

have decorum none too soon on This Week's spotlight.

Big Ben may have fallen silent, but on the day of Margaret Thatcher's

funeral, there were those who still felt the need to celebrate, rather

than commiserate. Maggie, Maggie, magistrateyy, dead,

dead, dead. How should people behave? What is beyond the pail?

Should protests be curtailed. Tiian Abbott criticised the extravagance

of this week's funeral. There is just no prose dent. It's a breach

of protocol and it's going to cost �10 million. Who decides where

freedom of speech ends and bad manners begin? Non-believers around

the world were ready to chastise Pop Idol Justin Bieber for his ill-

judged comments after visiting Anne Frank's how, but are we more ready

to forgive the naive indiscretions of the young? Maybe not if they

dare to involve politics and are only 17. Paris proun's resignation

as Kent's youth crime commissioner proved it's hard to live down any

lapse in the rules of Twitter etiquette. So what is and is not

acceptable behaviour -- Paris Brown. For those of us old if not wise

enough to know better. That's me picking the bar tab up

again! Kim Woodburn, welcome to the programme. What did you make of

those who protested at the funeral on Wednesday? Anyone that has any

protest at a funeral is absolutely gross. You don't take a protest to

a funeral. You respect, you respect, you respect. But it was a public

funeral, it wasn't a private bun. It was going through the heart of

the capital. It was being paid for in part by the British taxpayer, so

I guess in a free society, provided it's tone with a certain restraint

that doesn't intrude on the family, protesters are not entirely out of

order? At a funeral it certainly is. It doesn't belong at a funeral.

Totally wrong. Somebody has died. But it was the funeral of, not the

Head of State, which is non- political, it was the funeral of a

Prime Minister. By definition, Prime Ministers are political and

no Prime Minister's always had the support of all the country, people

will have different views? We live in a democracy, you can hate and

love something, but you voice your opinion but you don't parade around

a funeral. That's not fair. You are spoiling the enjoyment of people

that liked Margaret Thatcher and wanted to see her buried in a

polite, dignified way. So the people unhappy about this funeral

and the manner of it should have stay add I way? Of course. You

think have your say but don't go to a funeral and spoil it for others.

If you liked Maggie Thatcher and disliked her, what right do the

people that disliked her have to spoil it for the people that liked

her. It was done in a dignified way because the security was second to

none. They were on a hiding to nothing if they started nothing,

they knew that. What did you think of the proprotest? The protest that

involved people turning their backs silently was in my opinion

legitimate and quite decorous. On the whole I would agree with Kim

that you don't protest, the point you make is right, it was a funeral

that �10 million worth of pwhick money was spent on. -- public money.

It may include the salaries of the police who would have already have

been on duty, but it was a lot of money. But the point is, it was a

public funeral. I don't think it was right to chant for some of the

reasons that Kim suggested and incidentally, I thought the Ding

Dong The Witch Is Dead campaign was misogynist at best and pretty

offensive actually, so that I think definitely went too far. But it was

a woman who, by design, created strong feelings. It isn't the case

that everybody in the country supported her. People did have

strong feelings and if it was possible to do it in a decorous way,

I think... Don't you think that's childish? You go all that way there

because you are going to turn your back, stupid prats, what is going

on, I'm an adult, I must turn my back, you big prannies. What's a

prany? Don't ask!People chose to go all the way there to stand by

the side of the street and hold banners and things like that,

that's fine, they felt strongly about it. It's not. If I dislike

somebody... If I dislike them so much, I don't go near them. People

travelled there and held "I love Maggie" flowers. A nice sentiment

"I love Maggie" they belonged at the funeral, but not this nonsense

with the banners turning their backs. Turning your back, it seems

to me, is a quietly respectful way to say, actually, no, I don't, this

isn't the whole... Why are you standing at her funeral?! Because

otherwise, all you would have seen would have been crowds of people.

You digitally turned your back, didn't you? I suppose I did, yes.

Why did you watch a woman you couldn't stomach? Yoint watch it,

that's the point. If I couldn't stand somebody, I wouldn't bother

getting on a bus to go to that woman's funeral. You are just being

an absolute dope. You look silly and you are silly. Anything useful

to add to this? I thought there was a net increase in British decorum

this week, I thought there was a reaction against the people

protesting in the days leading up to the funeral. One of the reasons

why very few people protested I think is that the immediate tkwra's

given more kofpbl than the small number of protests merited, people

were shocked by it and the protesters backed off -- media

given more coverage than the small number of protests merited. British

decency ruled the day I think. we showing more decorum these days

or descending into barbarians? Descending into barbarians, of

course we are. Oh, Kim!Oh, come along now. That chant of Ding Dong

The Witch Is Dead is horrid. Have you ever thought about this? Some

idiots have young children at home watching them behave like this.

It's appalling, you know, they've got children, Thai got brothers,

sisters, mums, dads, watching them behave like that at a funeral,

should be ashamed of themselves. have run out of time. We like

strong opinion at this time of night, helps keep us awake. It's

salt of the earth night at Annabels and we'll crowd down the piano for

a knees up with George Osborne, the favourite East End boy. People may

be mocking his Newark sent, but wait until you hear his rendition