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.
@richardscourtney says:
April 15, 2013 at 9:01 am
I’m not sure that your description of “ignorant bigots” – or maybe just those with fixed ideas – is accurate when you say that they “deliberately choose”. That such people exist on both sides there is no doubt.
But I think “deliberately choosing” allows too much latitude. Rather, I think saying imprisoned is more accurate.
As I said up-thread, the legitimacy of introducing Thatcher as a topic, apart from her active role in AGW, is in demonstrating, through the content and personalization of the comments, how intractable the issue of AGW warming is, because it is, for many, indistinguishable from their sense of self. Quite obviously, Thacher was a major influence on the development of AGW as public policy – and culture – but this is extremely difficult for some to admit since it just does not “fit”. And for others, different things are not convenient.
Beyond anything else, this thread is a case study in the absolute necessity of “generational change” since not a few posters here are demonstrating that they cannot break free from experiences of 20, 30 or 40 years ago to the degree needed to be able to see clearly and call a spade a spade. And I think it is reasonable to believe that relative to society generally the posters here are more capable of that.
Whilst “generational change” as a matter purely of age has been a debatable proposition, it is not obvious to me that there exists a sufficient mass of people who are free of the formative period running to the end of the ’80’s, that underpins what now exists, who have any significantly distinct outlook, and so any “generational change ” possible is likely to have to come from a wide range of ages, with the core requirement being that there is the capacity to look from outside all the orthodoxies of the past 25 years, which had been in the making for the previous 25..
how intractable the issue of AGW warming is, because it is, for many, indistinguishable from their sense of self
============
So ask those with these views if they think Thatcher did the right thing in breaking the miners and they will say they hate Thatcher.
Just shows they aren’t particularly clever to get the connection between their views and the consequences for the coal mining industry.
To those who object to this article’s inclusion. Viscount Monkton is a regular contributor to this site, so his public letter remembering and honoring an old friend recently deceased is not more irrelevant than Willis’s life history even if she was not the former Prime Minister of Britain. While the state funeral is a separate matter, and one that this American is staying out of, this is quite reasonable to include.
The fight Vs. AGW is a political one. But in the documentary from 2008 (?), ‘The Great GLobal Warming Swindle’, they alleged it was her Govt. that established a politically driven research bent to look for AGW so as to blame coal mining. Corruption of climate change perhaps can trace it’s roots to her office? I’d be interested to see what Monckton thinks of the accusation made in that documentary. I think the correlation of the left with AGW is a curious thing.
I don’t think the left/AGW connection is strange at all.
FIrst there was the collapse of the socialist block. With it truly opened up, people could see its effects from Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot with mass murder to the economic impoverishment.
So that ruled out socialism as a major force.
However, they still want to control, and what better than to use AGW as the means by which you can control and tell people what to do.
Then you have the profiteers who will look to make a quick buck in any way whatsoever.
@ur momisugly LB says:
April 15, 2013 at 10:43 am
Not disagreeing but would add that there are those opposed to AGW simply because it forms part of their general attitude to those who support it. Or to those who they think might represent it by what they think they might show in other attitudes. Works both ways.
LB says: April 15, 2013 at 10:43 am
‘…if they think Thatcher did the right thing in breaking the miners…’
Margaret Thatcher broke the power of the union bosses who had brought down one democratically elected government and wanted to break hers (Google Arthur Scargill, see example below). She freed the working people of this country from their oppressors and industry from the dead hand of the state. For this she is hated by the entitled classes. The rest of us are grateful that she did.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2307753/Margaret-Thatcher-dead-Arthur-Scargills-satisfaction-seeing-bitter-enemy.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490
@ur momisugly Nigel S says:
April 15, 2013 at 9:41 am
“I said (quoting Christopher Booker) that Margaret Thatcher had got it wrong on CAGW at first and corrected herself in 2002.”
————————————————————————————————————————–
If loving/hating/admiring/despising Thacher can be left out of it, the question is why did she get it wrong (and then why did she get it right)?
Possibly in addition to that, did she get it wrong in the substance of what she understood, or did she get it wrong in actions taken for other reasons?
Whatever the answers, why did this happen?
I remember the 1970s in Britain very well. The ‘British disease’ was quite specific, namely, trade union militancy. The unions knew they could get away with it, because they owned the Labour party, just as big business owned the Conservative party. (Of course it’s all quite different now; big business owns both parties. ‘We, the people’ just take whatever is thrown at us, as usual. But I digress.)
Margaret Thatcher was elected (including by many Labour voters) to sort out the unions. This she did. But when you call in the rat catcher, you don’t expect him to gut the house. That is the side of the picture that the Maggie worshippers ignore.
No doubt the historians will eventually reach a balanced view of that period. Just don’t expect those of us who lived through it to do so. It’s still too raw.
When questioned about some aspect of the Falklands fracas with Argentina back in 1982, that the inquisitor found particularly onerous, The Honorable M. Thatcher replied Britannia Rules the Waves. Therefore, Britannia Waves the Rules!
The Grand Old Gal had a delightful sense of humor… and an iron girdle. The world is a bit more impoverished with her loss. We mourn her passing, with all true-hearted Britons.
MtK
Thatcher’s funeral is going to be a disaster, with thousands standing with their backs to the parade. There have been dozens of street parties, and protests at football grounds (she blamed 95 Liverpool fans for their own deaths in 1989). She was hated like no other prime minister in the last century. “A destroyer of tyrannies from arrogant Argentina via incursive Iraq to the savage Soviet Union” – Monckton’s history is as bad as his poetry. He should stick to refuting global warming, and not spoil his argument by mixing it up with conservative mythology. Same with others on this site.
@ur momisugly Sam the First says:
April 15, 2013 at 9:44 am
Gareth Philips again:
“Freddie and Fannie? Is that the company who collapsed under Mr.Bush’s watch?”
It’s the company which was set up at Bill Clinton’s diktat to force banks to give mortgages to those who could not afford them, this leading to the near-collapse of the banking system (after Clinton left office). The Left’s adulation of the Clintons is a complete mystery to those of us who view politicians with some degree of objectivity.
—————————————————-
Thanks Sam, same principle with regards to Thatcher on this side of the Atlantic, the adulation is very strange and somewhat unsettling to the majority of the UK public.
It makes me smile to know that Lady Thatcher can reach out from beyond the grave and manage peoples’ minds as this thread suggests. That she can cause the “Ding Dong” song to hit the top of the charts is magical. That she can, in death, compel people to do crazy things in public is dazzling. She is in their heads and won’t leave and won’t let go. We need more like her – she causes nutters and haters to self-identify. That is a beautiful thing.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/04/16/mary-archer-on-margaret-thatcher/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatcher/10000508/Margaret-Thatchers-funeral-Bishop-of-Londons-sermon-in-full.html
Margaret Thatcher funeral procession: How applause drowned out the jeers