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.
Thatcher’s greatest achievement ~ it’s not what you think
http://www.countingcats.com/?p=14146
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2006/11/17/welcome-to-watts-up-with-that/
@Stephen Fisher Wilde says:
April 14, 2013 at 5:25 am
“If you or I were part of a mining community we may have fought for our family, jobs and future, after all, what else did these communities have?”
You would have received far more consideration if you had not kept disrupting the supply with the avowed intent of bringing down the elected government.
The final Scargill induced strike was arranged without a ballot and did not have majority support even amongst the miners.
Thatcher was forced into a defensive position and had little choice. Fortunately she knew what to expect from Scargill and had prepared well for it.
If the miners had restrained Scargill’s purely political agenda then any necessary further shrinkage of the coal industry could have been managed with adequate support for the communities and individuals affected.
You let Scargill destroy your communities in a stupid political escapade.
Interesting point Stephen. So what happened to the miners and pits in the regions that did not strike and opposed Scargil? (For our American cousins I’ll point out that they were treated exactly the same, they all lost their jobs.) Though I agree that Scargill was a plonked who completely lost the plot. and who did not see he was being set up.
Scargill was however right on one thing. He said the UK coal industry would be closed down, and he was correct. By the way, I did not support Scargill and ‘did not let Scargill destroy our commuities’ I opposed the whole escapade because it was nasty, vindictive, economically stupid and designed to destroy miners as a political force who had acted undemocratically during the time of Thatchers predecessor, Edward Heath. Such political goals could have been achieved without the cruelty imposed and would have led to better economic outcomes.
One of the greatest leaders of the 20th century….
Quite accurate Gareth.
Now we have Labour saying lets get rid of coal powered power stations. The hypocrisy of them blaming Thatcher for something that is party policy ….
@alleagra says:
April 14, 2013 at 5:24 am
Gareth Phillips
“…it is immoral to say the least. Margaret Thatcher was an important politician who’s influence “
Small point: the apostrophe here is an abbreviation for ‘who is’ or maybe ‘who has’. You meant to write ‘whose’.
I’m grateful Alleagra, I’d like to blame the autocorrect, but it’s a fair cop! Cursed grocers apostrophe !
Wake up ! agw is a politacal issue .the science is clear agw is a hoax and the policies being brought about are ludicrous. The time for political acti
State funeral for Thatcher? No, I do not agree with that at all. For better or worse, she was just a Prime Minister. Better things to spend that money on IMO. The Thatcher family are very wealthy, Thatcher had been living at The Ritz for many years at taxpayers expense because her own home didn’t have some form of lift to the bedrooms (Apparently). Any other mortal would have been forced to move the bedroom to the ground floor, and die there.
Right-wing economic and political philosophy does not have heart.
At least it seems that way to many left-wing people in the beginning.
Right-wing economics shows its heart in the end; in the results. It just works better and more people have jobs, standard of living increases, mortgage rates fall etc.
Left-wing economics just siphons the spirit out of the economy, it motivates people in the wrong way. It feels good to some in the beginning but it fails in the end. Human nature is what it is.
To me, it is just like climate science. There is theory and emotion-laced feelings about the environment, Then there is bottom line results, what really happens. Do temperatures rise as predicted. Do people have jobs and feel satisfied after an 8 hour day, knowing it bought a nice house and two cars.
I know of a place that used to be extremely left-wing. Unions and government ran everything. Young people moved away after graduating from high school. Nobody wanted to take a risk and start a new business. But one day, the people themselves, decided this was not working anymore.
Today, there have been nearly 20 straight years of balanced budgets, debt has been cut in half, taxes have been reduced. The entrepreneurial spirit is back. The unemployment rate is 3.9%. If you need a job, you can literally walk in off the street and start the next morning. People are immigrating in in large numbers and the population is rising faster than it has in 90 years. Personal satisfaction rates are as high as they can get.
I think we can thank Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan and Milton Friedman for setting western civilization back on the right track. Some countries decided to stay in the 1970s and they are bankrupt today. Other countries, including the USSR and China and Vietnam decided to listen and they are prospering today. It is what it is; not what is supposed to be according to some. But they probably also believe in global warming instead of what is really happening.
In 1980s when I was working for the ITV (LWT), after an interview with Brian Walden, Mrs T marched into the lift lobby, where a burly security man was holding door open, when she approached, he stepped out for the moment so the lady could get in, and as he was to re-enter the lift, Mrs T. pressed the button, closed the door and left, the security man departed running up the stairs, followed by laughter of some studio employees from the adjacent coffee bar,
I’ll never understand why people need to come in and complain about topics like this. You could tell from the title what was going to be said, why read it if it upsets you?
Although this was Roger Waters’ scathing commentary on the Falklands, pretty much a whole album of whining about Thatcher and Reagan, this particular verse defines my mental image of Margaret Thatcher. Bravely sending a weakened military to practically the other end of the world, some on a Ferry, some on the longest airborne sorties in history, to claim back an otherwise unimportant piece of real estate. Knowing that a large percentage of her electorate would hate it. Knowing that military force was “out of fashion” in the “modern world”. Doing what needed to be done. Telling tin-pot dictators ‘NO’.
In an era where Air Traffic Controllers had to be fired en-masse, because they wanted to strike and deprive the world of an essential service. An era where Unions could literally bring an entire first world country to its knees. Someone had to do the right thing. Someone did.
I never really appreciated what I was seeing, being in my teens and early 20s, subject to the media manipulation that made me think Thatcher and Reagan were insane. In retrospect I have nothing but admiration for the strength of character demonstrated by both of them, and a desire to Do The Right Thing, even when faulty advice was giving them the wrong message.
Sure, in that era “science” seemed to be showing us that Global Warming and the Ozone Layer were big problems. Sure she championed that cause, then walked away from it. I also recall that the EU seemed like a great idea at first, however there are only a very few people that actually benefit from it.
You’ll never convince me that Thatcher was anything other than a great leader. Even when the hated former PM Trudeau passed away some years back I would never, EVER have danced in the streets or made “ding dong the witch is dead” into a hit song. No, people with any sort of sense keep those opinions to themselves and let those who appreciated or admired what someone did mourn their passing. Myself, I spit in the Trudeau fountain when I had a layover in Montreal a few years back. That’s all.
Not everything that a great leader does is all that great. Taking risks sometimes means losing your wager. Someone who was truly as horrid as some people seem to think Thatcher was would never have been reelected. She did what she needed to do. No less.
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.
There are two general ways one inspires loyalty:
1.) By reciprocating. (The way she did it. Anthony also springs to mind)
2.) The usual tawdry methods with which history is so replete.
And it is incumbent on those who inspire such loyalty (by either route) to lead effectively and in the correct direction. She was one of those rare ones who made the grade without the curve.
I was 33 when Margaret Thatcher came to power, having spent the 70s trying to establish a career and to support myself in a country in chaos, with the economy on its knees and 33% inflation. I left university in the late 60s very left wing (as most of us were), but I remember the years before Thatcher with utter horror, and voted for her gladly. If you weren’t economically active in that decade you can really have little idea how dreadful things were.
It’s ridiculous to claim that Thatcher caused the rifts in society or left/right and north/south divide: they were always there. And all governments to that point were dedicated to maintaining the status quo: the Tories looked after the toffs and the upper middle classes, while Labour expanded the state at every opportunity and kept their client state of the working class under their bureaucratic thumb in state-owned industry and publicly owned housing.
mwhite above recommended the programme shown last night on Ch4: “Death of a Revolutionary”. I second that, since it went a long way to explain why Thatcher’s election was both inevitable and desirable given what went before; and it also explained how far she empowered the working class to get out from under the heel of the state. It was the working class who voted for her in their millions, who understood what she stood for. The paternalistic empire-building Left never did, and never will.
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/margaret-death-of-a-revolutionary/4od
Like all revolutions this one was taken too far in some respects (eg so called ‘care in the community’ for mental health sufferers, and the axeing of subsidies to the arts); but all the excesses from which we now suffer of unfettered immigration, political and eco-indoctrination in schools, anti-democratic aims and actions of the CAGW lobby and the EU bureaucracy, and so much else would have been unthinkable under Thatcher, who put the British people first (and never lied to them). That, of course, is why she had to go.
She was indeed a giant among pygmies, for better or worse; but the party political system is now so centralised in the two main parties via the selection system, it may be impossible for such an individual ‘conviction politician’ to rise to power – more’s the pity. Her legacy rests now within UKIP, whose policies reflect her views and priorities: those are not shared by the increasinly social democrat Tory party
As for the desirability of such a post on this site: I’ve been grateful to read so many thoughtful posts, providing a more rounded view of Thatcher and her legacy than can be found in the partisan press. And whether we like it or not, AGW is an entirely politicised topic, a movement with an agenda – as she came to realise.
patrick (are you Irish?) wrote:
” The Thatcher family are very wealthy, Thatcher had been living at The Ritz for many years at taxpayers expense ”
Wrong on both counts. The couple was well off by most people’s standards; but ‘very wealthy’? No. Dennis was a pretty poor businessman and in the end lived off his wife’s earnings. Mark may be wealthy but Carol certainly is not. I imagine Mrs Thatcher’s savings paid for her stay at the Ritz, or maybe the cost was donated by rich admirers. On what basis do you claim the taxpayer funded it?
Gareth: the remaining mines were shut down as they were no longer viable given cheaper sources of coal offshore. Blame the strikes for allowing competition to get a foothold that they would have never had otherwise. The mines were never set up to operate in such a market, so could not compete.
Jolan
As an X power worker, now retired, i can remember the months preceding the miner’s strike when the CEGB secretely stockpiled coal and chemicals, shipped in under the cover of darkness. Yes it was a set up, cunningly conceived, and executed by Thatcher and her cronies. Scargill rose to the bait like the clown he was. Mind you if he had called a ballot there might have been a different outcome. I remember the police, shipped around the country, so as not to confront locals, waving their obscene, fat bonus pay packets in the miners faces, as they goaded and taunted them as they were slowly starved into submission.
I remember a pickets caravan, not on CEGB property, being deliberately crushed by a 40 tonner, as the police looked on, laughing.
Anyone remember Orgreave where the police cavalry, clad in full riot gear, attacked and gave a cruel beating to a gang of miners, a lot of them mere boys, most of them wearing only tea shirts and daps and how the BBC deliberately distorted the report so as to appear that the miners had attacked the police.
I remember Gorgachev who for a year or more had attempted to get Thatcher around the table to negotiate a peace deal. With the whole country clamouring for him to be heard Thatcher deigned to recognise him with the words ‘I can do busness with this man’ Where had she been all this time?
Can anyone remember the number of Argentinian missiles and bombs which scored direct hits on the British fleet and fortunately failed to detonate? If the bombs had gone off it would have been a calamity, the Falklands war could have had a far different outcome.
Maggie you were so lucky!
The prevailing defence in the comments of this slipping over into partisan party politics seems to be that this climate science issue is already overwhelmingly politicised. I don’t think many readers would disagree with that!
The irony is that exactly what is ignored in this encomium is exceptional about its famously successful conservative subject, and it is precisely this which is of interest to the discussion of the politicisation of climate science.
The tragedy is that seemingly neither his lordship nor Anthony could see this. An apparently emotive and egotistical post has just placed a giant spotlight on a blind spot caused by the sorts of political emotives that they otherwise purport to want removed from the science debate.
Oh well, the damage is done, but as penance for His proud folly, I suggest, his Lordship’s next essay discuss Erasmus’s encomium to folly, and it’s classic model, Lucian’s praise of the flea. And I hope we can all learn through the ridicule that we should expect for the fabulous irony of what has passed here.
Too bad the “Iron Lady” nickname stuck. Iron is so Middle Ages technology, and she was a very modern woman. Stainless steel would have been a better descriptor. Although, “Stainless Steel Lady” doesn’t have quite the same ring to it.
“Margaret: Death of a Revolutionary”
http://www.martindurkin.com/short-thoughts/margaret-death-revolutionary
The blog of the film
@ur momisugly EcoGuy says:
April 14, 2013 at 6:29 am
Gareth: the remaining mines were shut down as they were no longer viable given cheaper sources of coal offshore. Blame the strikes for allowing competition to get a foothold that they would have never had otherwise. The mines were never set up to operate in such a market, so could not compete.
So are you saying that it was less expensive to pay these miners to be unemployed, give their children and families social welfare, import coal from other countries and address the horrendous social problems resulting from such action than keep marginally profitable mines open? Remember, Tower colliery was supposed to unprofitable, the miners took it over and it ran it at healthy profit for another 25 years. They were lucky, Price-Waterhouse Cooper helped them achieve that, many others did not get the chance. Thatcher could do this as she frittered away the revenue from North sea oil, the sad thing is that her successors have had to pick up the pieces of that lost generation.
Good God … why is this crap on here!!!
Give her her due, she was sharp at avoiding tax right till the end. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/margaret-thatcher-tax-snatcher-mystery-1828441
Despite our obvious differences on MT the general tone has remained respectful. I am thankful for that. It would be sad if the passing of a historical figure soured the work of this community. I found this site when climategate broke and I was trying to understand what it was all about. Although skeptical of government in general I did not understand that basic science was being corrupted. Those posting here opened my eyes and mind. Over the years I have come to enjoy cheering you on as you gored one ox after another. As an unabashed fan of what you have accomplished against staggering odds I sincerely hope nothing ever dimishes your zeal for the work.
What a wonderful tribute. Thank you, Lord Monckton. Those who think the tribute is not suitable for WUWT, stop trying to impose your limitations on what can and cannot be posted on this site. It hasn’t been a purely scientific site for a long time and it is growing in stature. The Wall Street Journal was once primarily a stock listing site and then it grew into a newspaper that is renowned around the world. WUWT is growing and it’s only Anthony’s business as to which topics it will exclude.
If you don’t like it, wander over to RealClimate and stay there.
She was strong, intelligent, and courageous. Wish there were more politicians with her qualities.