Talk:Margaret Beckett

The future

What does she do now the shuffle of Brown has taken place?

In 2006, just before the reshuffle that saw her become Foreign Secretary, it had been suggested that Beckett was prepared to retire from the government. Present rumours suggest however, that Beckett might become a Baroness in the House of Lords, and there have even been suggestions in the 'Westminster village' that she might become Leader of the House of Lords and Lord President of the Council in the future.

I can't find any sources to corroborate this text. A quick squizz at WP articles for other senior Cabinet figures reveals no comparable sections, so I'm inclined to delete this section as it is entirely speculative (the best I could find was a one-line mention in a 1999 BBC article suggesting that she might be moved from Leader of the Commons). Any thoughts?Peeper 19:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Totally speculative and unsourced. Delete until it can be coroberated. WjBscribe 19:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Language skills and thrust of the article

I'm perfectly happy for mention of Beckett's language skills or otherwise to be included in this article, and I certainly am no fan of the lady. But I do think that there is something unencyclopaedic about this edit and would welcome some comments so that consensus can be reached. I'm not interested in a row, I just want to make sure this article holds up well. At the very least, I contend that this sentence as it stands needs citation. If it is really part of the debate, then that's fine - but we must be able to show this. I don't believe there is any comparable comment about any of her three immediate predecessors, none of whom had any Arabic, Chinese or Russian. Thoughts please? Peeper 21:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes you are certainly correct about that particular edit. First, the editor should put it, if anywhere, in the criticism section at the bottom. Second, it should have to be (a) fleshed out with an explicit explanation of its relevance, ect and (b) backed up by a reference.

However, apart from that, I think the thrust of the article is perfectly all right. It just needs a bit more work! Avaya1 22:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

37 defectors from Labour over Lebanon War issue?

Why is the defection of 37 Labour Party members to the Lib Dem party of enough importance to merit a mention? Is that about 0.001% of her constituency? Who cares? Adam Holland 17:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

No it's not; do you really think that there are 3.7 million constituents in Derby South? Given that the total Labour Party membership is now less than 200,000, this figure is more likely to resemble some 10% of local party members. If the Labour Party is not concerned at this, its attitude speaks volumes about its current situation and prospects. RolandR 15:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Post Blair Years

Given Beckett's new position, created new 'Post Blair Years' section to article to tidy it up a bit. AlbertSimon (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

'Acting leader'

"As of 2008, she is the only female to have led the Labour Party, albeit in what was technically an acting role"

But the opposite is true, isn't it? As I recall, at the time she was repeatedly referred to as 'acting leader', but it was pointed out that under the party's constitution she actually held the full position of leader, and in theory would have been perfectly entitled to carry on in that role until the annual leadership elecion (in all other circumstances a formality) was held at the party conference. Sofia9 (talk) 01:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)