Give the Iron Lady a State Funeral

In deference to our Open Thread on Saturday, Monckton submitted this for WUWT readers. It is insightful and worth a read IMHO – Anthony

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, courtesy of wnd.com

It will be from Heaven that Margaret Thatcher, the greatest friend the United States ever had, will observe the now-inescapable disintegration of the dismal European tyranny-by-clerk whose failure she foresaw even as it brought her down.

Margaret was unique: a fierce champion of people against government, taxpayers against bureaucrats, workers against unions, us against Them, free markets against state control, privatization against nationalization, liberty against socialism, democracy against Communism, prosperity against national bankruptcy, law against international terrorism, independence against global governance; a visionary among pygmies; a doer among dreamers; a statesman among politicians; a destroyer of tyrannies from arrogant Argentina via incursive Iraq to the savage Soviet Union.

It is a measure of the myopia and ingratitude of her Parliamentary colleagues that, when she famously said “No, no, no!” at the despatch-box in response to a scheming proposal by the unelected arch-Kommissar of Brussels that the European Parliament of Eunuchs should supplant national Parliaments and that the hidden cabal of faceless Kommissars should become Europe’s supreme government and the fumbling European Council its senile senate, they ejected her from office and, in so doing, resumed the sad, comfortable decline of the nation that she had briefly and gloriously made great again.

Never did she forget the special relationship that has long and happily united the Old Country to the New. She shared the noble ambition of your great President, Ronald Reagan, that throughout the world all should have the chance to live the life, enjoy the liberty, and celebrate the happiness that your Founding Fathers had bequeathed to you in their last Will and Testament, the Constitution of the United States. I know that my many friends in your athletic democracy will mourn her with as heartfelt a sense of loss as my own.

The sonorous eulogies and glittering panegyrics will be spoken by others greater than I. But I, who had the honor to serve as one of her six policy advisors at the height of her premiership, will affectionately remember her and her late husband, Denis, not only for all that they did but for all that they were; not only for the great acts of State but for the little human kindnesses to which they devoted no less thought and energy.

When Britain’s greatest postwar Prime Minister was fighting a losing battle for her political life, I wrote her a letter urging her to fight on against the moaning Minnies who had encircled her. Within the day, though she was struggling to govern her country while parrying her party, she wrote back to me in her own hand, to say how grateful she was that I had written and to promise that if she could carry on she would.

I had neither expected nor deserved a reply: but that master of the unexpected gave me the undeserved. For no small part of her success lay in the unfailing loyalty she inspired in those to whom she was so unfailingly loyal.

Margaret savored her Soviet soubriquet “the Iron Lady”, and always remained conscious that, as Britain’s first woman Prime Minister, she must be seen to be tough enough to do the job – the only man in the Cabinet.

It was said of her that at a Cabinet dinner the waiter asked her what she would like to eat. She replied, “I’ll have the steak.”

“And the vegetables?”

“They’ll have the steak too.”

Yet her reputation for never listening was entirely unfounded. When she was given unwelcome advice, she would say in the plainest terms exactly what she thought of it. But then she would always pause. The advisor had two choices: to cut and run in the face of the onslaught, in which event she would have little respect for him, or to stand his ground and argue his case.

If the advisor was well briefed and had responded well to her first salvo of sharply-directed questions, she would say, “I want to hear more about this, dear.” She would tiptoe archly to the bookcase in the study and reach behind a tome for a bottle of indifferent whisky and two cut-glass tumblers.

At my last official meeting with her, scheduled as a ten-minute farewell, I asked if I could give her one last fourpence-worth of advice. She agreed, but bristled when I told her what I had been working on. “Don’t be so silly, dear! You know perfectly well that I can’t possibly agree to that.” Then, as always, she paused. I stood my ground. A salvo of questions. Out came the whisky from behind the bookshelf. I was still there an hour and a half later.

The following year, during her third general election, I told the story in the London Evening Standard. Within an hour of the paper hitting the streets, a message of thanks came from her office. Unfailing loyalty again. She won by a 100-seat majority.

To the last, her political instinct never left her. One afternoon, Sir Ronald Millar, the colorful playwright who wrote her speeches, took her onstage at the Haymarket Theater, which he owned. She gazed up at the rows of seats, turned to Ronnie and said, “What a wonderful place for a political rally!”

During the long speech-writing sessions that preceded every major speech, Ronnie would suggest a phrase and Margaret would rearrange it several times. Every so often, she would dart across to Denis, sitting nearby with a gin and tonic. She would try the line out on him. If he did not like it, he would drawl, “No, no – that won’t fly!”

A couple of years ago her “kitchen cabinet” invited her to dinner. For two hours she was her vigorous old self. I sat opposite her. Late in the evening, I saw she was tiring and gave her a thumbs-up. Instantly she revived, smiled radiantly, and returned the gesture – using both thumbs.

It was not hard to see why Margaret and Denis Thatcher were the most popular couple among the old stagers working at 10 Downing Street since the Macmillans. Now they are reunited; and I pray, in the words of St. Thomas More, that they may be merry in Heaven. They have both earned it. Let her be given a State Funeral. Nothing less will do.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

244 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Lew Skannen
April 14, 2013 12:07 am

The latest whine is the ‘cost’ of the funeral.
I wish Boris Johnson or someone would set up a fund for private contributors. I would gladly contribute as would many others and I have no doubt that the full cost would be raised in no time. That would then cut off that line of whining.
Someone else noted the irony of the protests/celebrations. The country is so wealthy today that even unemployable yobs can afford champagne to drink as they stumble about public squares making vermin of themselves.

Village Idiot
April 14, 2013 12:14 am
April 14, 2013 12:14 am

Gods teeth, what has happened to this site? It has metamorphosed from a science and associated issues to a primarily political campaign. Lets get this straight, generally (with very few exceptions such as Winston Churchill), only Royalty gets state funerals. There are those who worshiped Margaret Thatcher, but at the end of the day she was a politician, although she used the Royal ‘we’ on occasions. As a country suffering austerity we seem to be using any excuse of the last few years to blow money on huge state occasions, it is immoral to say the least. Margaret Thatcher was an important politician who’s influence will be felt across the world for many years, but lets keep things in proportion. Is not a funeral in the same Church as royal wedding and televised live across the world not enough? Is she to be worshipped as a deity ? Is this a good use of the mull million pound costs that such a ceremony would incur? And remember, everyone in the UK would have to pay through their taxes, and we know that not all of the UK benefitted from Mrs.Thatchers radical ideas.

April 14, 2013 12:19 am

Fine for you to post this Anthony as it is your blog , and not just about climate etc. however, I recall a few years ago a shift into conservative politics that I sense you regretted. The corruption of climate science and of climate politics is what unites us here. The thing is that the great relevance of thatcher in this regard is that after Brundtland (Norway ) she was one of the first state leaders to start beating the drum of climate alarm and in doing so clearly demonstrating the financial benefits of scientists beating along – ie 1988 address to royal soc and the establishment of Hadley Centre. The sceptical founding head of CRU, H H Lamb, did not stand a chance after Thatcher stepped in.

April 14, 2013 12:24 am

I liked this site when it wasn’t a political platform. Ugh!

April 14, 2013 12:27 am

Just take the cost from the contributions to the EU that she saved us.
In proportion, a state funeral would be just pennies.
That sort of recognition of her value is the least we could do.

Editor
April 14, 2013 12:32 am

Village Idiot The Guardian is spouting it’s usual left wing drivel. Hopefully with it’s declining sales it will soon be no more.
Gareth, I agree with you about a State Funeral, it would set a precedent, because as much as I admire Mrs T and what she did for our country, logically every ex PM should be have a State Funeral. As for the cost if she did have one, it could come out of the £75 billion she has saved us from our contribution to the EU.

April 14, 2013 12:33 am

I must admit to being deeply saddened by the campaign to buy ‘ding dong the witch is dead’ to mark the death of Maggie Thatcher This is a terrible affront to an old Lady who was much loved by many people across the world. Julie Garland surely deserves better.

Mario martini
April 14, 2013 12:37 am

I love this site. Let me add to the requests to keep this kind of politics out of it.

Mike McMillan
April 14, 2013 12:40 am

“And the vegetables?” indeed. A great lady, and at the right time.

April 14, 2013 12:42 am

I wonder how our US cousins would feel about a leader who shut just about every coal mine in the US and threw ancient communities on the scrap heap, mainly for political goals.If you want an insight into how such people felt, have a look at this clip from a great film called Brassed off. I would hope the noble Lord would also find time for a quick glance. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKx3MUqzCcQ

Editor
Reply to  Gareth Phillips
April 14, 2013 4:19 am

Phillips 2013/04/14 at 12:42 am
You might be surprised by the actual figures re coal mine closure:

“…the facts show that far more coal mines closed under the Labour Prime Ministers Harold Wilson and James Callaghan.”

Johan i Kanada
April 14, 2013 12:51 am

I second the calls for keeping this site focused on climate related topics.

April 14, 2013 12:56 am

She earned enough to pay her own way in life and death. It’s what she would want and besides 60% agree – No state funeral (23% said yes).
Monckton who was feeding from the same table, not one of those waiting for trickle down scraps to occur so his opinion of Mrs T is bound to be warped by his full belly. Calls for a state honour and even a minutes silence come from other table guests who joined in the feasting.
On behalf of the hungry many including the good people of Liverpool besmirched for a ‘greater cause’ of political convenience I say to the good Lord, on this occasion, ‘No thanks, we defend our own too’ and turn our backs.

TheInquirer
April 14, 2013 1:03 am

Tribal political biased hyperbole.

A. Scott
April 14, 2013 1:10 am

WUWT is a community …. with citizens from across the globe. It is a community that prides itself on civil discourse and where each side of an issue can have their say … within those same limits of civility. That is the strength of a community such as this, and it is also why, I believe, it has the huge worldwide reach that it does.
One can learn much by listening to BOTH sides of an issue, and accomplish even more by respectfully engaging in intelligent discussion with those you disagree with.
As to Margaret Thatcher – agree with her positions or not, she accomplished much and served her country with great spirit, passion and conviction. For that she deserves simple basic respect. At least the courtesy of not being offended, when those who appreciated her service to her country and its people express their respect and remembrance.
Many have said the triumvirate of Lady Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II were the only combination that could have accomplished the end of the Cold War – high praise in my book, coming from none other than one Mikhail Gorbachev:

We soon found that although we represented two opposing alliances and ideologies, we could engage in a real political dialogue on the most critical issues. We argued and we disagreed. But we had joined the dialogue. And that, in and of itself, was important – for the confrontation had reached a dangerous point. On many issues, our outlook was different, but the need to look for a way out was clear to both of us.

I think Gorbachev’s words have value here – while this community allows that we can disagree – there is value in respectful dialogue. Just as there is considerable value in respecting the thoughts and beliefs of others, agree with them or not, as they express their heartfelt remembrances of someone important – to them, and in many ways important to the world.
Just as Willis’s great stories enhance the value of this great community – so to does the occasional off topic post such as Lord Monckton’s here. Neither do any disservice to the community – to the contrary I think they add considerably to it.

A. Scott
April 14, 2013 1:11 am
Spillinger
April 14, 2013 1:14 am

“I second the calls for keeping this site focused on climate related topics.”
“commentary on puzzling things in life. . .climate change. . . .And recent News”
get over yourselves

pat
April 14, 2013 1:14 am

sober up. this is possibly the most important & honest MSM article in years. just add Thatcher’s name alongside Reagan’s, read it all and weep:
30 March: NYT: David A. Stockman: State-Wrecked: The Corruption of Capitalism in America
(David A. Stockman is a former Republican congressman from Michigan, President Ronald Reagan’s budget director from 1981 to 1985 and the author, most recently, of “The Great Deformation: The Corruption of Capitalism in America.”)
This explosion of borrowing was the stepchild of the floating-money contraption deposited in the Nixon White House by Milton Friedman, the supposed hero of free-market economics who in fact sowed the seed for a never-ending expansion of the money supply…
This dynamic reinforced the Reaganite shibboleth that “deficits don’t matter” and the fact that nearly $5 trillion of the nation’s $12 trillion in “publicly held” debt is actually sequestered in the vaults of central banks. The destruction of fiscal rectitude under Ronald Reagan — one reason I resigned as his budget chief in 1985 — was the greatest of his many dramatic acts. It created a template for the Republicans’ utter abandonment of the balanced-budget policies of Calvin Coolidge and allowed George W. Bush to dive into the deep end, bankrupting the nation through two misbegotten and unfinanced wars, a giant expansion of Medicare and a tax-cutting spree for the wealthy that turned K Street lobbyists into the de facto office of national tax policy. In effect, the G.O.P. embraced Keynesianism — for the wealthy…
The United States is broke — fiscally, morally, intellectually — and the Fed has incited a global currency war (Japan just signed up, the Brazilians and Chinese are angry, and the German-dominated euro zone is crumbling) that will soon overwhelm it. When the latest bubble pops, there will be nothing to stop the collapse. If this sounds like advice to get out of the markets and hide out in cash, it is.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/opinion/sunday/sundown-in-america.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

Joseph Adam-Smith
April 14, 2013 1:19 am

Gareth/Simon. EVERYTHING is political! We in the UK have to fight not only our govenment’s mad plans, but also those of the European Soviet Union – which is ably supported by the Greens. The articlae Maryland’s “Woind Powered Welfare” http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/12/marylands-wind-powered-welfare/ also shows how politics is used – in this case to get potential Green votes for Governor O’Malley. Obama also taps into Green votes. All politics

FrankSW
April 14, 2013 1:19 am

Tribal political biased hyperbole maybe, but not if you had to live through the dismal preceding years of union domination with the three day week (we continued working by gas and candle light) and rubbish piling on the streets and woe betide the working man if he did not comply with union diktats.

April 14, 2013 1:21 am

Every so often WUWT strays off the subject of climate. That should be of no concern as no one is obliged to read the articles.
Too much straying and readership will fall dramatically.
I am a great fan of Margaret Thatcher and what she did for Britain; I am a greater fan of what she and Reagen did together, which was being largely instrumental in ridding most of the world from the tyranny of communism. It was simply a case of standing firm against those who believed the state should do everything and can do no wrong.
So it must be with sceptics; the nonsense of CAGW/imminent Thermageddon has been championed by those who work directly, or indirectly, for the state and parasite activist groups like Greenpeace. Both require dire predictions of the future for their leaders to prosper.
Too many of us believe the state can do no wrong. The western world’s leaders of today are political pygmies compared to the likes of Reagen and Thatcher, which is presumably one of the reasons they have been duped by the ‘scientific concensus’ of Mann, Hansen and the Team.
‘Climate science’ is all about increasing the role of government in our lives, something completely abhorrent to the likes of Thatcher and Reagen.

April 14, 2013 1:23 am

I don’t think this thread is off-topic. Ok, the lady was an “early adopter” of AGW, but she was also an “early dumper”:
Christopher Booker, The Telegraph 12 Jun 2010:
“In 2003, towards the end of her last book, Statecraft, in a passage headed “Hot Air and Global Warming”, she issued what amounts to an almost complete recantation of her earlier views.
She voiced precisely the fundamental doubts about the warming scare that have since become familiar to us. Pouring scorn on the “doomsters”, she questioned the main scientific assumptions used to drive the scare, from the conviction that the chief force shaping world climate is CO2, rather than natural factors such as solar activity, to exaggerated claims about rising sea levels. She mocked Al Gore and the futility of “costly and economically damaging” schemes to reduce CO2 emissions. She cited the 2.5C rise in temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period as having had almost entirely beneficial effects. She pointed out that the dangers of a world getting colder are far worse than those of a CO2-enriched world growing warmer. She recognised how distortions of the science had been used to mask an anti-capitalist, Left-wing political agenda which posed a serious threat to the progress and prosperity of mankind.
In other words, long before it became fashionable, Lady Thatcher was converted to the view of those who, on both scientific and political grounds, are profoundly sceptical of the climate change ideology. ”
She doesn’t admit she got it wrong, but hey, she was a politician. Lays the blame on the “distortions of science”. She may have been the first, but hopefully won’t be the last, to finesse it this way.

empeef
April 14, 2013 1:23 am

Monckton the joke about ‘and the vegetables’ was from the TV series Spitting Image – Thatcher never said that.

DocWat
April 14, 2013 1:23 am

No matter how bad one is some people will always love you. No matter how good one is some people will always hate you. I find it sad that this latter group cannot gloat in silence.

Chris Carnaghan
April 14, 2013 1:25 am

Dear Anthony,
Were you aware of Lady Thatcher’s espousal of AGW, as highlighted by Village Idiot and Berniel ? Yes, she did recant later in life, but only quietly, not vigorously or widely in public as she should have done to counter the damage that her earlier actions continue to cause.
It’s disconcertingly curious that the usually meticulous Lord Monckton’s encomium does not mention – on WUWT, of all sceptic fora – her positions and actions (e.g. creating the Hadley Centre) on AGW.
PS The obscure words are for Lord M’s benefit; my apologies to WUWT readers who did not benefit from his classical education.

1 2 3 10