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.
“John Matthews says:
April 14, 2013 at 6:45 am
“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.”
BBC distort facts? Gosh, shock, horror!
“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!”
Argentinian? They were French bombs and dropped from Russian aircraft! Still no mention of HSM Shefield!
Jon says:
April 14, 2013 at 7:09 am
Good God … why is this crap on here!!!
To piss people like you off. Why else?
“Sam the First says:
April 14, 2013 at 6:27 am”
The fact that as a, former PM, taxpayers “support” former PM’s…you can google this stuff…
“Sam the First says:
April 14, 2013 at 6:18 am”
Like this post. Need a like button here I think!
One thing I am sure of,if Gillard had just a tiny bit of Thatcher in her Australia would not be paying a carbon tax,And people dare to say global warming has nothing to do with politics.How I wish that were so.I read that she stated she did not want a state funeral.If that is so then her wish should be respected.
@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.”
Bunk.
But interesting to see a Greenie troll turn up to stick up for the PM who founded the cAGW scam.
The vast majority of ‘no longer viable’ British mines were closed by Harold Wilson as others have pointed out – whilst trying to justify Thatcher’s (and Major’s) decimation of productive mines – often new mines, like the ones opened or refurbished in the early ’80s in the Barnsley Area, at a cost to taxpayers of £500 Million,(to buy off the NUM until Thatcher’s preparations for the strike were complete. £B 0.5 was serious money, then).
Other ‘no longer viable’ mines closed when they were exhausted, as they always did and still do. But now there are only three left and they are doomed by the present Government’s (and EU’s) absurd policies.
And in fairness to Wilson, the closures were in the context of the 1974 ‘Plan for Coal’, prepared after the Six-Days war saw oil prices quadruple, and was a blueprint for a modernised, indigenous coal industry. Now, I’m not a fan of Wilson, nor of State Planning. But the Plan for Coal was agreed by ALL political parties (including the Tories) and it was Thatcher who reneged on it.
So far as competition with foreign coal, the only time that foreign coal was seriously cheaper than British coal was early in the 1990s when Poland was dumping coal on the market to get hold of foreign currency (and indeed, Columbia was doing the same). So, yes, the Daily Torygraph huffed and puffed then about overpriced British Coal. But didn’t let on that this was the spot market price for odd boatloads of high sulphur coal delivered at Rotterdam (not in the UK). And, indeed, until Immingham was upgraded a decade or so ago, there was no mechanism of keeping UK coal powered power stations supplied with sufficient imported coal. Even today, if the surviving British Coal Mines could supply twice as much coal, they’d sell every shovel full.
I well remember in the run up to Privatisation, German coal production costs were three times the UK production costs. In Spain, where the EU had poured money into new coal mines, the production costs were five times as much. So much for the EU (and UK Government) assuring a ‘level playing field’.
yet another tale of dogma, incompetence, greed and malice.
berniel says Thatchers ….”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.”
Spot on.
In 1980 the tyranny of the Unions had no bounds and none could stand against them if they wished to work.
I used a self employed graphic artist who could not work without a union card; without his individually numbered union stamp upon them no one would print his creations,
Differing craft Unions were interlaced and strictly controlled the market place to the sole benefit of their members, enforcing at the same time an obligatory monthly contribution to the Labour Party.
The freedoms that we enjoy today were not won lightly and the sadly tortured souls, still tormented 23 years after she left office, and who would dance on the grave of our freedom fighter, for such she was, serve only to highlight the dangers that await us if we forget the lessons of that time.
Well done Anthony for posting this. And thank you Christopher for writing it.
<radical>
I think it is very important for people who are objective with regard to science to train that same objectivity on politics.
What has surprised me is the vehemence with which those on the “left” – including people I work with – have denigrated Thatcher. I confess that in the early 1980s I was on her side, but my views are now more nuanced.
Even so, I suspect that when Tony Blair dies, I will be as vehement as those who now criticize Thatcher. Not only for trashing the UK economy and destroying civil liberties, but also for giving Bush an excuse to murder hundreds of thousands of innocent people in Iraq.
We live in so-called “democracies,” which are supposed to rule over us for our benefit. But they don’t – do they?
Why should conservatives have to suffer under Obama? And why should “liberals” have had to suffer under Bush? Why should socialists have had to suffer under Thatcher? And why should those of us, who are not socialists, have had to suffer under Blair and Brown, and are still suffering under Cameron?
Why can’t we all have our own communities, with our own rules? Like WUWT? With a simple justice (a.k.a. moderation) system keeping everything peaceful?
</radical>
Nigel S says:
April 14, 2013 at 4:03 am
OK, ‘artwest’ and others, somebody has to do it. Please read this and tell me what part of it you disagree with.
————————————————-
Chose to evade answering the two specific points I made if you like, but why on earth should I waste my time writing an essay just to help you do so?
As regard to your lengthy “Thatcher/society” quote, the point is not whether I agree with it but whether those calling for a lavish state-funded funeral for a very wealthy family agree with it.
If so, they are guilty of rank hypocrisy.
Gareth Phillips says:
April 14, 2013 at 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. ”
To a farm-seasoned US citizen used to annual winter belt tightening, I would have to say you have convicted yourself by your own words. What country, in such a state of financial austerity as yours, would be willing to foot the bill for crowned idiot funerals??????
I don’t cotton much to crowns. No Sir! As far as I’m concerned Prime Minister Thatcher’s decidely uncrowned head and wicked smart sharp-edged tongue is far more deserving of such a state burial than your delightful hat-crowned queen, nice though she be.
42 reasons why not
The Queen has represented England for years.I don’t think an American can understand what that woman represents to a lot of people.In her eighties and still giving her all to England.It will be a sad day when she passes on.The end of an era.I wonder how much the royal family has brought in in tourism over the years?
You won’t get me to criticise the queen even though I’m not English.her sons however…
That assertion leaves me virtually speechless, so I’ll defer to the late Mrs. Thatcher:
–British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher,
(Peter Jenkins, Mrs. Thatcher’s Revolution)
pat says:
April 14, 2013 at 1:14 am
Thanks for that link,State-Wrecked: The Corruption of Capitalism in America, and your excerpt. As soon as the steam clears from my eyeballs, I’ll read the entire article.
Hans
Interesting banner ad included with the video. To close it you have to select NO. Ironic considering the nature of this site.
Great Britan had no business of being in the business of coal mining, making cars, providing phone service, making steel, collecting trash and whatever industries that were nationalized after the war. If anyone is to blame for the suffering of the working class, blame the post war Labour Party and the British people who who fell head over heals with socialism. What naturally followed was a disaster and the coal industry was just the most dramatic example. Those of you who lament the closure of those mines- do you wish British Telecom was still around, or that you were still subsidizing the manufacture of autos, steel and every other state run business?
They call her the Iron Lady because, like all great leaders, she had the courage to act and knew that merely snipping at the cornes would prolong suffering. People had to suffer, it was inevitable. Hence the tragedy of socialism.
Thatcher was divisive.
But that is politics. Most issues are complex. Many people who agree on some issues will vehemently disagree on others. And a blog is a good forum for discussion of these differences.
But it is foolish to put up a blog post from a friend of such a divisive person without a balancing blog post. Because it is politically naïve to pick a side. You will alienate potential friends. As for your enemies…
If you want to do politics (and why shouldn’t you) then be politically aware before jumping in.
I`m delighted to see so many differing and deeply held political viewpoints here at WUWT.
Who would have thought that we sceptics encompassed such broad church?
roger at 7.35am:
“In 1980 the tyranny of the Unions had no bounds and none could stand against them if they wished to work”
This hits the nail on the head, and I had much personal experience of it. Even my husband was forced to join SOGAT to work for Reuters, where as an ex-Naval communications whizz, he could copy-take at the speed of light (he did this as a second job at nights, so we could save to buy a flat). During the ‘printing union wars’ c1982 when Sogat and the NUJ forced the closure of many papers and news outlets, he broke the strike and went into work (only to be sent home by a supine management!). The print strikes by the way were an attempt to resist the introduction of computers.
My husband wanted to embrace this new technology. He was of impeccably working-class origins in the East End, and loathed the unions with a passion for their Stalinist grip on every aspect of this country’s life and economy. His working class mother and step-father had bought their first and every subsequent house outright, and taught him to work hard and never borrow. They too hugely admired Thatcher, as did so many of their class and outlook.
As for the former industrialised communities of the north, Wales and Scotland: yes, they did suffer in the wake of the Thatcher revolution; but this was largely suffering of their own making. They continued with their tribalised voting, choosing Labour at both national and local level, with the result that City Halls all over those areas remained in the hands of the sclerotic, blinkered and often corrupt Labour Party machine. These voters supported the forces which got their money and their raison d’etre from the Unions, which had caused so much of the problem Thatcher was forced to tackle.
Why on earth would capitalists invest in these areas, with their history of workforce militancy, wildcat srikes, and their refusal to enter into the modern world or to acknowledge economic realities? Everything they produced could be more cheaply made in Asia or Eastern Europe. Meanwhile (as am American working in the north of the UK at the time wrote on yesterday’s thread), people refused to move to where there was work, even by a few miles, preferring to remain in dying towns where almost everyone was on the dole.
I see no reason why Thatcher should have poured yet more taxpayers’ money into new businesses such areas, given the attitude of the people to work and economic realities. It would have been wasted. It was up to the local political leaders to provide a welcoming climate for inward investment: they conspicuously failed to do so, and employers took note. These realities persist to this day.
@ur momisugly patrick: If Mrs Thatcher chose to spend her tax-payer funded prime ministerial pension on living at the Ritz with a carer, why not? It was handily central for friends to pop in to see her. She would have received the pension regardless of where she chose to live.
Lord Monckton: I was listening to you on Roy Green’s show yesterday and had the following thought. P.M. Thatcher essentially saved Great Britain from the road to Greece. Yes, some communities were uprooted/changed but those are realities which must occur not because the so called political overlords wish them, but because we, as a population, are constantly changing. Our underlying resources must adapt to the constant change in demand. Only because we constantly resist change instead of constantly adapt to it, are the large upheavals required.
I hear the arguments about how she “devastated” these communities with no consideration given to what would have happened if the gov’t of the time had not acted. Would love to see someone write an article about how life would be if she had not acted. Along the lines of the article Anthony posted about how life would be if oil stopped flowing out of the ground. And, by the way, by somebody, I’m suggesting you. You have the in depth knowledge of the sociopolitical circumstances and economics along with the writing skills to do it!! ;>)
To those who think Anthony should keep politics off this blog there is one problem. He would have to stop writing about climate change. As Roger Pielke Jr. said, and I paraphrase, C.C. moved from science to political science a LONG time ago.
My last post has gone into the trash – it was polite, as they all are! Mods?
Belay that, it’s now appeared! Sorry
berniel says:
April 14, 2013 at 6:52 am
“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.”
————————————————————————————————————————–
Good point. Sort of.
But it is the point.
To see displayed the range of issues, grievances, and affirmations, encompassed by adherents of any partisan position is to show what will be be for many an intractable blindness and impossibility of separating the issue of AGW from their personal existence.
Like it or not, that is the reality.
Lord Monckton – I think you may be mistaken: “and the vegetables” was a Spitting Image lampoon. When I watched it I rolled OFL as did everyone else – but these words are not attributable to Mrs Thatcher.
And in “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 … they ejected her from office”, this runs contrary to such constitutional conventions as we have in the UK. Mrs Thatcher was MP for Finchley and could expect to hold that position so long as she had the confidence of the Finchley electors. In 1975 she was elected leader of the Conservative party but she enjoyed that position only so long as she had the confidence of the Conservative parliamentary party. She lost that confidence in late 1990, due to a succession of events including the poll tax riots, the Howe resignation speech, many polls showing that she was then personally less popular than the party and the Meyer and Heseltine leadership challenges. She withdrew from the second leadership ballot and tendered her resignation to the Queen: this is the fate of all party leaders who lose the confidence of their parliamentary parties. She knew that from the outset.
Like everyone she had good features as well as bad. One feature that I suspect had something of both was her combative side – without which (unlike Ted Heath and Jim Callaghan before her) she could not successfully have taken on the IRA, the Argentinians, the unions, the miners, all the state monopolies, the EU – and the general perception that the UK was the sick man of Europe when she took office. But this comes at a price – views of her are very polarised and she became widely hated as much as she was respected (but I think she would have expected and possibly relished this).
However, what I think is objectionable is the faux-protests by youngsters who weren’t even born or were in their infancy when she left office 23 years ago, and cannot know what she faced in office. I saw her from the House of Commons gallery in the early 1980s, waited breathlessly for Ian MacDonald’s announcements during the Falklands campaign (including those after the Belgrano and Sheffield sinkings) saw her demolish the “perks” of my own profession (scale conveyancing fees etc), saw how the trade union barons sought to defeat her in the same way as Ted Heath and came away respecting her – but I also respect the fact that many others do not. In short, I think that any true verdict on her can only now await the perspective of history.
Thank you for this personal account.