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.
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/margaret-death-of-a-revolutionary/4od
“A radical film about a radical woman.
Martin Durkin’s controversial thesis is that Margaret Thatcher was a working class revolutionary.
She believed that capitalism was in the interests of ordinary people, not the toffs. Many ordinary people agreed.
And that is why the left hated her so much – Margaret Thatcher stole the working class.
This feature-length film includes interviews with the David Cameron, Norman Tebbit, Nigel Lawson, Cecil Parkinson, Neil Kinnock, Bernard Ingham and many others close to Mrs Thatcher.”
moderators:
I realize its early days, but I am loosing faith in the system here. I posted a comment in Green Eco Porn which didn’t appear and did what I could to notify you but to no avail.
I have posted two comments here, one about 40 minutes ago, one 15, neither of which went through. I am writing this now, rather than waiting an hour or two, in the hope that it is less likely to be lost under other things.
Obviously not everyone’s cup of tea.
She divided a society she didn’t ‘believe in’.
Here is an equally well written piece from the other end of the class divide (at the time):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/09/russell-brand-margaret-thatcher
A grey area. We should be used to these 🙂
Andy says: April 14, 2013 at 2:17 am
Just one example of how we are affected currently. She privatised the water industry that has not spent a single penny on anything but dividends. … The water companies are being allowed to bleed this country dry.
_____________________________________
Tosh, Andy. You should be embarrassed to write such tosh.
UK water companies have spent $150 billion on infrastructure projects, since they were privatised by Thatcher. And this includes the London Ring, which was one of the largest construction projects in Europe. This is an 80km ring main, of 2.5m diameter, all around London.
http://www.building.co.uk/data/costs/cost-model/infrastructure-water-companies/5044674.article
http://www.thameswater.co.uk/about-us/850_2613.htm
Images of the London Ring.
http://construction.morgansindall.com/assets/c/o/coppermills_2-2.jpg
http://www.building.co.uk/Pictures/web/j/d/v/Thameswater8.jpg
And the fact that the UK population is dramatically increasing is the fault of Blair, not Thatcher. You cannot blame Thatcher for Blair opening the immigration floodgates to every freeloader and criminal in the world.
And if you are worried about UK profits going abroad, then again blame Blair. It was Blair who allowed these companies to be sold off abroad, not Thatcher. Should Thatcher have kept a significant government holding in each one (say 35%) including a so-called ‘golden share’? Sure she should, but Blair would have changed that policy straight away, as all he wanted was the money. As they say: “socialism is always the best political system, until they run out of other people’s money.”
.
And this is the problem with this thread, Anthony, we are now discussing party politics instead of the Climate Scam.
.
By failing to resign after Argentina invaded the Falklands she created a precedent followed by the likes of Julia Slingo and the head of North Staffs NHS Trust.
To those who lament that this site has become politicized through this article: Why do you think the site was founded? Is it your naïve view that climate science has been somehow separate from politics these past few decades? Eisenhower and others have pointed out the dangers of the “military-industrial complex”; they were right, of course, and it is folly to pretend that industry has ever proceeded without a strong scientific component, to which the forces of government (hence politics) soon began to pay attention. That attention, of course, led to various measures to control the science, from banning or restricting certain initiatives, to supporting or encouraging others with tax money (ours) or exemptions or deductions. If you think all this is non-political, go ahead; it will be more painful when you find out the truth. The weather is now the most politicized aspect of nature, or so it seems. This tribute to Thatcher, richly deserved, is perfectly appropriate on a site that exemplifies and promotes aspects of her eventual (not original) views. This is a political site, since its raison d’etre is, among other things, to alert people to a highly political situation with strongly political moves, countermoves, and consequences. The science is also essential here, of course; but the reason it is so important is that so many people in high places refuse to recognize scientific reality. Margaret Thatcher was a realist, who examined her premises whenever possible; Monckton is the same; both are fit to be quoted on this site.
I greatly respect the massive volumes of carefully researched scientific contributions on 99% of this blog but I don’t think reading a few words of tribute for some-one who made a significant impact on our times will much damage the reputation of this highly regarded website.
I always remember Thatcher’s work ethic:
* A fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay.
* Pay your bills.
* And save something for a rainy day.
After all, whether scientist, bureaucrat, climatologist, retiree or grocer’s daughter, we must all live and work within a political system and row the boat with the oars we have. Anyway, in many respects I am sure that Anthony Watts and Margaret Thatcher have a great deal in common.
I know the temptation is to view the past through rose tinted glasses, but America was not always the friend Thatcher deserved.
America refused to help Britain when Argentina invaded the Falklands. And America repeatedly urged a “settlement” with the Argentine aggressors.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/29/world/europe/falklands-war-caused-rare-friction-for-thatcher-and-reagan.html
The Falkland islands were settled by the British, and have always been British. Argentina has never shown anything other hostility towards Falkland Islanders – to this day, Argentina continue petty diplomatic attacks on the Falklands, such as threatening to ban cruise ships which visit the islands from Argentine waters. For Ronald Reagan to urge a political settlement, to urge a sovereign, free people, to accept at least partial occupation from a cruel foreign power which usurped their freedom with force of arms, for the sake of geopolitical convenience, was probably one of the most shameful things that otherwise great President ever did.
Argentina appears to once again be on the warpath – this time for greed for the wealth of oil discovered in Falklands territory. Again the rhetoric is rising against people who want nothing to do with a country of hostile foreigners. A new war seems increasingly likely.
http://rt.com/news/britain-war-falklands-argentina-914/
Let us hope that this time America remembers who her friends are.
I would be honored to attend Margaret Thatcher’s funeral and fully support a state funeral. It is odd how political failures repeat, there must be a fundamental reason why the Soviet Union collapsed and why modern countries want to expand the welfare state, are unable to address special interest groups, and kick the deficit can down the road. Thatcher used humor, clarity of speech, and determination against all odds to address special interest problems, to face mass demonstrations and strikes, to save Britain from economic collapse.
As the welfare state expansions, more and more people work for the government. Wages are determined by the economic impact of shutting down services or politically if one can elect a party that does not understand or does not care about a future sovereign bond default. It is easy for a politician to sell a lie. Governments become corrupt, increasing their own wages, turning industrial countries into third world chaos. It is very easy for a modern welfare state to become like Greece, Spain, and Italy.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatcher/9991843/Margaret-Thatcher-never-forget-the-chaos-of-life-before-her.htm
“Nurses and ambulance drivers were on strike. Old people’s homes and schools were closing. The railways were not running. The electricians’ union marked the approach of Christmas 1978 by taking both BBC One and BBC Two off the air. The country was left with just ITV, to watch (the electricians waited until August 1979 to switch off ITV for 75 days).
More seriously, rubbish was piling high in the streets, creating a health hazard. The most potent metaphor of national decay was in Liverpool. There, a factory was being turned over to storage space for the dead because members of the GMWU union were picketing the cemeteries. Contingency plans were made to bury the city’s rotting corpses at sea.
It is worth recalling what Britain was like before the advent of Thatcherism. Doing so dispels the now prevalent notion that Margaret Thatcher created a nation of selfish individuals thinking only of their own gain and acting without a care for the needs of others. It also helps explain why, in the early Eighties, there were millions of ordinary Britons who continued to believe that her tough and, at times, distasteful, medicine would eventually work. The alternative – so-called consensus politics – had certainly been given long enough and had bequeathed a country commonly derided as “the sick man of Europe”. ”
Henry Galt says: April 14, 2013 at 2:51 am
Here is an equally well written piece from the other end of the class divide (at the time):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/09/russell-brand-margaret-thatcher
___________________________________
Are you aware that Russell Brand is a foul-mouthed imbecile and egotist, whose primary claim to fame is that he taunted a famous actor about f***ing his daughter on live television.
And Russell Brand was just three years old when Thatcher came to power. So this is a bit like getting Tiger Woods to give us his considered opinion – being such a well-known intellectual – on the presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson.
If the Grauniad has to stoop down to the kindergarten and into the filthiest of gutters to get a commentary about Thatcher, then that says more about the Grauniad than it does about Thatcher.
.
mwhite, I watched the Durkin film last night, too, and found it very thought provoking. I recommend it.
Well Maggie’s demise is “recent News”, and in my humble estimation worthy of discussion here.
Having lived through the McMillan, Wilson and Heath years when Britain was far from being Great, I also remember the hysteria around global cooling. I remember the cold winters of the early 60’s, and the even colder ones when strikes closed power stations in the early 70’s
Yikes, the miners even managed to close down an oil-fired power station by picketing the railway line delivering the needed fuel.
But I also remember a certain Bert Bolin’s much vaulted plea for nations to burn more coal to avert catastrophic global cooling. This is the same Bert Bolin who later became the first chair of the IPCC.
Maggie saw in Bert, the germ of an idea that coal could have an effect on climate, and commissioned various bodies including the Royal Academy to conduct research – oh and here’s some cash to make sure she got a result that showed coal is bad – something to the beat the miners over the head with.
It seems this approach was highly successful, with the establishment of the CRU etc., oh and of course the crushing of the miners
Only in later years did our Maggie back away from the corrupted science – but hey she was a politician
As for her other qualities – she did great things for Britain – she also did some bad things. I always thought here 3rd term in office was a mistake, since like most politicians with a 3rd term, she saw herself as invincible and inviolate. The Poll Tax is testament to that.
State funeral – NO – but a grand farewell – YES
Andi
Monckton: ” workers against unions, us against Them, free markets against state control, , liberty against socialism, democracy against Communism, prosperity against national bankruptcy…”
Well, the “free markets” that Thatcher deregulated are now controlling the state. The sacred democracy that his lordship spends so much time applauding is now meaningless in the face of banks dictating policy and holding country after country to ransom.
Funny he should mention national bankruptcy. Bit out of touch that one that since the bank bailout pretty much doubled the national debt overnight. The current swathing cuts politely call “austerity” that are pushing the country even close to total economic collapse are needed to recover from a debt imposed by the greed and incompetence of the banks.
“privatization against nationalization”, well privatisation was good for flogging off national assets like BT at half its market value but nationalisation is still de rigeur when it’s an £80bn debt to be picked up by the tax payer.
But do we “nationalise” the banks in order to recover our money having bailed them out. NO, that is a dirty word now. That would “socialist”. Instead, we leave the banks the healthy bit so they can go on reaping obscene bonuses while we assume the astronomic cost of their greed and stupidity.
” workers against unions” . Beaut. That gives us the “right” to be forced do unpaid work as interns. In that past that was called slavery.
Monckton has been an effective opponent to the AGW scam but this attempt to rewrite the history of way Thatcher destroyed the country is an insult.
The US is OWNED by the banks too , where did you last $100bn go ?
Thatcher was at forefront of implementing a failed economic dogma that even the Chicago school that started it no longer believe in.
Prosperity against national bankruptcy.?
Who’s prosperity. That of the landed gentry like his lordship perhaps, Not ours.
Monckton is let down by his right wing polemic.
‘Free markets against state control’
No so-called conservative is for free markets and less state control, it is a nonsense piece of rhetoric that just gives real advocates of free markets a bad name.
Thatcher was as phony as Reagan, who at the time, uncured the highest debt in US history
I prefer this obituary.
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2013/04/09/the-thatcher-paradox/
Well, amidst all the paeans of praise, this man has his own criticisms – and nobody, here or anywhere else, would suggest that Peter Hitchens is some bleeding heart liberal. And those of us who lived through her time as PM, here in the UK, see her as merely a politician, not some icon of western freedom. Where I was brought up, there was once a thriving coal industry, steel works and a functioning local economy. After her, the place became a job desert – and still is. That’s her true legacy in large parts of Britain. *And she started off the AGW rubbish here*.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2308783/PETER-HITCHENS-Lets-remember-Maggie-really–tragic-failure.html
jc says:
April 14, 2013 at 2:50 am
moderators:
I realize its early days, but I am loosing faith in the system here. I posted a comment in Green Eco Porn which didn’t appear and did what I could to notify you but to no avail.
I have posted two comments here, one about 40 minutes ago, one 15, neither of which went through. I am writing this now, rather than waiting an hour or two, in the hope that it is less likely to be lost under other things.
Hi JC, similar experiences, I’ve had three posts on different threads disappear into the ether. I really don’t think they were moderated our or I would have see a snip or similar, I suspect there may be a problem.
“Where there is discord, may we bring harmony.”
I make no comment and leave it to others to decide whether Margaret Thatcher attained these ideals whilst in office.
Really poor show wuwt! Please stick to science for fear of looking a bit pathetic and politically bias
Strange how she is accused of being divisive when in fact she put an end to the division that preceded her election.
The 60s and 70s with Labour control most of the time were far more divided times than the 80s and 90s.
But then the authoritarian left (just like fascists) has always thrived on division, using class prejudices to divde and rule the voter base. Without creating division socialism has no purpose in the modern world. With greater individual wealth, easy communication and rapid travel there is no longer a rigid class heirarchy but that doesn’t stop the authoritarians doing their level best to bring it back with them at the top.
It seems that where the left is concerned the truth is always the opposite of what they pretend.Once one has an authoritarian mindset believing that one knows better than others how things should be then it is but a simple step to deciding that ends justify means whereupon complete intellectual corruption inevitably follows.
This is highly relevant to the climate debate because the discussions about dishonest leftist behaviour in those times offer a parallel with the dishonest use of climate science by the left in recent years.
Thatcher was taken in by climate alarmism to begin with but then became an early sceptic when she saw how it could be manipulated for the benefit of an authoritarian agenda.
1. The miners brought down an elected government. They didn’t believe in democracy.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
2. Labour party policy is now Green. ie. CO2 is evil, lets close down the coal powered power stations.
Thatcher just did their dirty work and they aren’t honest enough to admit they would do the same.
Lord Monckton, thank you for sharing your personal story about this incredible person.
Condolences on your loss.
R.I.P. Baroness Thatcher, our world needs more like you.
Let me tell my little story. In 1947, my first real job was with the reasearch lab at Lawford, Essex with BX Plastics. There were three ladies on the scientific establishment, two of who were lots of fun; the other was only interested in politics.
I emigrated to Canada, and decades later visited the UK, and stayed with an old friend I had met at Lawford. He said WWTE, “Do you remember Margaret Roberts?”. I replied “Who the hell was Margaret Roberts?”, and he proceeded to tell me what had transformed her into The Iron Lady.
Frankly, I can remember absolutely nothing about Margaret Roberts; but then I was only 22, and had no interest in politics at all.
Lew Skannen says:
April 14, 2013 at 12:07 am
Someone else noted the irony…
———————————————————————————-
And I’ll note the irony of people who normally rail against every penny spent of taxpayers money demanding that $10m plus is spent on a grandiose mournfest for a woman who said that there was “no such thing as public money”.
Anthony
I notice my post is held up in moderation somewhere in the middle of the comments.
Do you really want Climate Science to turn into a left wing – right wing bun fight?
Will a question of science come down to political outlook?
What will happen to your right wing political beliefs if the IPCC version turns out to be correct.
Anthony Watts forced to be a Marxist?
Surely not!
Sean Gabb of the Libertarian Alliance on Margaret Thatcher:
“She made the environmental nonsense politically fashionable. She was the first senior British politician to start wittering about climate change and ozone holes. She doubtless thought she was further stuffing the coal miners. In fact, she was a useful idiot for the ideology best suited to replace socialism as an excuse for Enemy Class domination.
She hardly cut taxes. She ruthlessly pushed the speed of European integration. Her militaristic foreign policy and slavish obedience to Washington mostly worked against the interests of this country. The one war she fought that might have some justification was only necessary because her own colleagues had effectively told the Argentine Government to invade the Falkland Islands.”
“Her encouragement of enterprise never amounted to more than a liking for big business corporatism. Genuine enterprise was progressively heaped with taxes and regulations that made it hard to do business. Big business, on the other hand, was showered with praise and legal indulgences. ”
http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/the-legacy-of-margaret-thatcher/#more-19374