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.
Just one correction dear Christopher, from a Biblical perspective, no one can ‘earn’ their way into Heaven.
If you repeat a lie long enough it becomes the truth. Margaret Thatches did not close the bulk of UK mines. The statsitics are
1960 698 mines
1965 483
1970 292
1975 241
1980 211
1985 133
1990 65.
Source ncm.org.uk
The bulk of the closures in the 1960’s were directed by the great socialist Anthony Wedgewood Benn ( Energy Secretary). So who destroyed the UK coal mining industry?
Whether Margaret Thatcher earned her state funeral is for wiser heads than mine. That she focused world-wide concern on environmental issues – on the “fundamental equilibrium of the world’s systems and atmosphere” – probably earns her both cheers and jeers. What is known is that she warned about the dangers of climate change to the Royal Society (September, 1988), in a speech to the Conservative Party Conference (October, 1988), and in an Address to the United Nations (November, 1988). Then, rather unapologetically, seemed to recant these positions in her memoirs.
It would just be great if we could field a politician who did not feel compelled to “wax off” in his private memoir what he eloquently “waxed on” about during his public career.
Strange I don’t see any mention of the Poll Tax here. That was the one big mistake.
Having destroyed the power of the unions she thought there was nothing that could hold her back. She decided to attack the majority of working and unemployed people in Britain by replacing the property tax (“rates”) with an individual tax on every adult in the country.
This meant families with maybe two adult children in a council house would be paying four or five times more per year so that people like his lordship, here, could be given a huge tax break on their large, spacious properties. The poor were to subsidise the rich.
This resulted a mobilsation far more powerful than the union movement could have organised years earlier.
31st March 1990, about a million people descended on the capital. After being “kettled” by police for several hours they were then subjected to police cavalry charging into the crowd. The resulting battle spilled out into the chic West End of London and shook the country.
Despite this massive popular rejection of her new tax, the “lady” was still not for turning. The 31 of October the same year a follow up demonstration was scheduled. The evening before it happened the government announced that the Poll Tax would be repealed. The “lady” had turned.
It was the first and only time she had be forced to back down and it showed she was not unbeatable
Less than three weeks later she failed to get the support of her own party in a leadership vote and was forced to announce her resignation as party leader and hence Prime Minister.
It was the combined force of millions of common men and women of Britain that broke her iron will.
There’s little cause for celebration now , she lost her power and her marbles decades ago, her death now is irrelevant.
We did celebrate in 1990 though. 😉
Now that I read through the other posts here I realize that I have no place to say what should and should not appear on WUWT. My apologies for being so foolish as to suggest what someone else should do with their blog!
This has turned into an interesting post. Someone else mentioned it, what a broad spectrum there is among skeptics!
Thatcher was convinced that she was right and had no compassion for those that disagreed with her policies.
She divided a nation and alienated the industrial north, driving many proud working class men and their families to despair. Whilst these men were defending their right to work, she unleashed thousands of highly paid policemen to attack and demoralise them.
She should pay for her own funeral like everyone else has to.
ralfellis says:
April 14, 2013 at 3:03 am
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. “”
Why not say what you really think?
Russel Brand is a multiple £million best selling author. He is also a prodigeous radio host, TV presenter, actor and creator of programs, film (and voice) actor in over ten movies and is currently filming with Oliver Stone. He also has many top awards for stand-up comedy.
Not too shabby for someone “… diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and bipolar disorder who has suffered from bulimia and been through a period of self-harming …” and, to use your own phrase “”foul-mouthed imbecile””.
His part in the incident you focus upon is as far removed from his ‘…primary claim to fame…’ as your handle on reality is from the facts.
Although, please note I am not excusing the parties involved, the story was about the actor’s grand-daughter, not daughter as you claim. A little further investigation of the incident would reveal that, until the Daily Fail sensationally blew it out of proportion, the ‘affronted’ central character was late for his gig, had laughed out loud when told about the story a week earlier, before accepting the interview and is on the record with ” … has thanked Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand for helping his career with the obscene messages affair…” Please note the other protagonist in the media event. People get a tad carried away in the ‘entertainment business’ don’t they?
I would bet good money you never so much as read a sentence of the article, which has garnered much praise from many diverse quarters. I base this assumption on nothing but my belief that your prejudices are showing, partly through your use of language.
Tez says:
April 14, 2013 at 1:43 pm
Dead right – except that many, many of those ‘policemen’ were soldiers with no unique identification number. These are usually referred to as shoulder or collar numbers and were absent from nearly two thirds of those involved.
Mark Thatcher should be paying for his mum’s funeral – like we all have to with ours.
‘… he was arrested in South Africa in connection with the 2004 Equatorial Guinea coup d’état attempt and pleaded guilty in January 2005 to breaking anti-mercenary legislation. At this time the Sunday Times suggested that he had personal assets of £60 million, most of which was in offshore accounts.’
Greg Goodman,
“She decided to attack the majority of working and unemployed people in Britain by replacing the property tax (“rates”) with an individual tax on every adult in the country.”
Whilst I cannot comprehend the logic in trying to impose the poll tax, I am utterly convinced it was not done out of some vindictive motive to “destroy working people.” The idea is completely out of kilter with everything related to her ideology. She believed in liberating the working people from the class structures held in place by traditional conservatism. She gave workers their unions back by introducing secret balloting. She wanted working people to “get on” and succeed.
I am saddened that so many believe she hated working people and “tried to destroy them.” Sure, the poll tax was misguided, but I am sure she believed it fair in her own mind – probably based on some notion of cutting taxes for rich as well as poor.
Thank you Anthony and Lord Monckton for posting this.
I, for one, mourn Lady Thatcher’s passing; may she rest in peace. I hope she is enjoying a (good quality) whisky or gin and tonic with Denis! On the day of the funeral I shall wear the blue ribbon I attached to my cycle on Election day in May 1979. Our country was thoroughly demoralised and in a terrible state, being held to ransom by bloody-minded trade unions. We were incredibly hard-up despite my husband being a senior professional. Then along came Maggie…hooray!
I fear that a lot of her legacy is being lost and the country is becoming degraded again. All the litter lying around is one symptom. Would that we had someone of integrity, vision and energy as PM now, instead of all the lookalike, soundalike, PPE little boys who ‘lead’ us now.
It’s worth reading Christopher Booker’s article in today’s Sunday Telegraph. She did make mistakes (anybody in this life who doesn’t?).
I have been very upset by the nastiness, hate, and viciousness of the response to her death in certain quarters. I dislike Blair, Brown, Mandelson, Balls and wife and the Millibands. I think they have done some bad things to this country. I would not, however, ‘celebrate’ their deaths.The young and ignorant members of the Socialist Workers’ Party, who ‘celebrated’ with champagne might like to consider that they wouldn’t have thought of drinking champagne back in the late 70s. They couldn’t have afforded it. Now they can is a measure of how things have changed.
Thank you Hans Erren:
April 14, 2013 at 7:55 am
That’s a keeper.
Funny how welfare costs, as a percentage of GDP were hovering around 11% for her reign, dropped to around 6% when Labour got in and only rose back above that level when the banking disaster happened yet we are being fed the opposite of that day in and day out right now.
I have no love for any political party but, “… balance dear boy, balance…” and in that vein here is an article from the Torygraph – whom I detest as much as the Guardian. An insightful, well written piece, even by a youth, leaning left, or right, is still a well written piece after all.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/owen-jones-thatcherism-was-a-national-catastrophe-that-still-poisons-us-8564858.html?fb_action_ids=10200397257428313&fb_action_types=og.recommends&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map={%2210200397257428313%22%3A298478733616613}&action_type_map={%2210200397257428313%22%3A%22og.recommends%22}&action_ref_map=[]
Post has disappeared.
I was wrong…it has now appeared…sorry!
Knock it off Gareth. Just admit that you are distraught and offended by even the concept of a strident anti-Communist being in a position of power anywhere. I predict you will throw everything including the kitchen sink into this thread, including that she wasn’t “conservative enough”, to take a crap on the recently deceased lady. You lefties are so transparent.
Yeah right Nik. Because when thinking of the AGW hoax and all manner of eco-babble and eco-terrorism the first person who comes to mind is Thatcher. Characters like Sagan, Hansen, Mann, Schneider, Earth First, 10:10, Greenpeace (… ad nauseum ) all take a back seat to this Iron Maiden! I think all that Upper East Side sushi and caviar has clouded your brain 🙂
To educate Gareth Philips:
1. More pits closed under Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson that during Thatcher’s time; and she didn’t close them anyway – economic circumstances and the march of progress closed them, like the cotton mills and steam railways; the politically motivated union strikes simply hastened that end. Industrial suicide.
2. You cannot simply say she opposed the reunification of Germany – with hindsight now universally accepted as a ‘good thing’ – as evidence of another thing she got ‘wrong’. Unlike political dogmatists she thought each matter through. Over the reunification of Germany her worry was that a united Germany might once again rise to dominate and threaten European stability. You might like to ask the Greeks and the Cypriots, newly impoverished to protect the euro, whether she was right.
And a further point: She opposed apartheid sanctions on South Africa because she thought they would affect the poorest most, therefore would be counter-productive. True leadership requires decisions based on best evidence at the time; not following consensus to stay in with those self appointed to the moral high ground. And if one feels history proved her wrong on that issue, that doesn’t make her evil.
Never malign someone’s actions without discovering their motives. And certainly not attribute motives. But that’s the left all over; can’t win an argument, so play the man (or in this case, the Lady) not the ball.
JC Sez::
“Those who do not want this raised here either see no point to it, or do not want their experience of the site polarised. This is understandable because these personal responses in themselves seem to add nothing, on the face of it, to wider issues including AGW.”
Perhaps. Perhaps they’re still viscerally clinging to the Leftist Politics they were indoctrinated with, notwithstanding clarity re: Climate – they’re Birds Of A Feather, Climate and Politics.
London247:
Your post at April 14, 2013 at 12:57 pm confuses post-war mechanisation and consolidation of UK coal industry conducted by both Conservative a Labour governments with closure of the coal industry then asks.
” So who destroyed the UK coal mining industry?”
The Thatcher governnment closed the UK coal industry.
I relate how and why in my post at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/13/weekend-open-thread-6/#comment-1274534
It is a matter of political opinion as to whether this was a good or bad policy.
But that policy was a reversal of ‘The Plan For Coal’ which had been adopted by all the main political parties.
Richard
I was a grad student in the history of science at Oxford in the early ’70s, when the UK had three elections in four years & two in 1974 alone. That was during the three day week & the year of gas lanterns, during the OPEC oil shock & constant union action. I made the mistake of wearing a red hat in the Middle Common Room of Queens College. I worked as a volunteer Tory pol watcher in one of the 1974 elections in a working class borough of London. It was a dreary & depressing time but I enjoyed talking to my fellow Liberal & Labour watchers. Also my “scout”, the lady who cleaned our rooms in college, who said she was going out to vote for paradise, who regaled me with tales of her vacation in Bulgaria & how she wished there was a British (or English) holiday like Thanksgiving, the give thanks for the inestimable benefit of being English (or British). Little wonder that not joining Europe was popular on both ends of the political spectrum.
Ted Heath was an object of humo(u)r. A Trotskyite friend of a friend of mine (now a famous liberal commentator) did an hilarious impersonation of him. But a tall friend of mine, a chemist from the North, told me about the Tory pol he hoped his party would chose as its leader. A middle class woman, a chemist, a persuasive orator, a profound thinker, a fighter, whom he hoped would shake up the “wets” & move British politics closer to the (then, if no more) American model of two parties who both favor free markets, but argue over how much of profits to tax & how much to regulate.
He got his wish & IMO Britain got, for all her successes & failures, its greatest peacetime leader of the 20th century. A real man among pigmies, finally brought down by the jealous & vengeful wets, not by her more honest Marxist opponents.
If you want to know the truth, the reason I just love saying things like “the only funeral thatcher deserves is to be shoved in a coal mine and collapse the roof over her”
…. is because it annoys the hell out of the idiotic conservative politicians that did so much to destroy the UK. Not only did they create the absurdly false myth that manufacturing was “Outdated” (it isn’t we all still buy cars and fridges and cookers and TVs and computers all of which we could still be producing in the UK if it hadn’t been for Thatcher’s cronies) .. but these gormless Thatcher “babes” rejected the pragmatic engineering approach which almost all sceptics support and pandered to the very “science” (aka “anti-industry”) sentiment, in the UK epitomised by the BBC, which created the environment in which the global warming scam took hold.
And yes the UK manufacturing needed reforming … but these politicians revelled in its destruction.
The conservative party was a heartless bunch of thugs and even if what they were doing was right (it wasn’t) they didn’t have to enjoy it.
pottereaton says: “Thatcher was a victim of the activist/scientists like the rest of us. We all grew up trusting in science and Thatcher was herself a research chemist before becoming a politician. I’m guessing her experience in science was one characterized by adherence to the scientific method and integrity in research. I don’t think she understood the rules were changing and that post-normal science was becoming de rigueur. “
I am open minded enough to accept that is a real possibility. Thatcher was part of an anti-industry movement which paradoxically turned into the anti-consumerist, anti-capitalist movement movement in academia which spawned the global warming anti-industry and eventually anti-science scam.
Gerg Goodman says:
April 14, 2013 at 1:14 pm
You are wrong, the Poll Tax replaced the Rates. The Rates was a tax on a property, with it’s cost determined on the value of the property, levied on the owner of said property. In other words, a mansion might have 2 people living in it, both using local services, and the owner of the mansion would be paying a fortune. A family of 5 living in a council house, all working would be using local services and the person whose name was renting the house was paying 30 % of what the mansion owner was paying. Is that fair? Idon’t think so. They are all using the same services, so why should the couple who are living on a pension, pay more than a family of 5 who use local services a lot more?
It was her firm personal wish not to have a state funeral, otherwise she would certainly merit one. End of story.
Lord Monckton and Anthony thank you for the respect you have shown to a great lady.
Margret Thacher would not put up with the fraud that the AGW crowd has perpetrated on the world.
I grew up in Liverpool. UK. in a poor demoralized area. I finally realized that the Labour Government policy’s were never about the working man it was always about enriching the few and the union leaders. On a final note every one of my working class relatives (and there are many of them) broken out of the poverty cycle .they own there own homes and have had many new cars, holidays and good quality lives, thanks to the Iron Lady’s policy’s that opened the door for the many,not for the few..
I’m a Climate,socialist and a Watermelon skeptic Ive looked at life from both sides.
DaveG says (April 14, 2013 at 5:51 pm): “Margret Thacher would not put up with the fraud that the AGW crowd has perpetrated on the world.”
==============================================================
Really? She was apparently one of the main perpetrators. I suggest everyone reads her speech to United Nations General Assembly, 1989 Nov 8 (http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/107817), quote:
“What we are now doing to the world, by degrading the land surfaces, by polluting the waters and by adding greenhouse gases to the air at an unprecedented rate—all this is new in the experience of the earth. It is mankind and his activities which are changing the environment of our planet in damaging and dangerous ways. …
VAST INCREASE IN CARBON DIOXIDE
We are seeing a vast increase in the amount of carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere. The annual increase is three billion tonnes: and half the carbon emitted since the Industrial Revolution still remains in the atmosphere. At the same time as this is happening, we are seeing the destruction on a vast scale of tropical forests which are uniquely able to remove carbon dioxide from the air. …
It is of course true that none of us would be here but for the greenhouse effect. It gives us the moist atmosphere which sustains life on earth. We need the greenhouse effect—but only in the right proportions. …
But the problem of global climate change is one that affects us all and action will only be effective if it is taken at the international level. …
Whole areas of our planet could be subject to drought and starvation if the pattern of rains and monsoons were to change as a result of the destruction of forests and the accumulation of greenhouse gases. …
CONVENTION ON GLOBAL CLIMATE
The most pressing task which faces us at the international level is to negotiate a framework convention on climate change—a sort of good conduct guide for all nations. …
But a framework is not enough. It will need to be filled out with specific undertakings, or protocols in diplomatic language, on the different aspects of climate change.
These protocols must be binding and there must be effective regimes to supervise and monitor their application. Otherwise those nations which accept and abide by environmental agreements, thus adding to their industrial costs, will lose out competitively to those who do not. The negotiation of some of these protocols will undoubtedly be difficult. And no issue will be more contentious than the need to control emissions of carbon dioxide, the major contributor—apart from water vapour—to the greenhouse effect. …
We can then agree to targets to reduce the greenhouse gases, and how much individual countries should contribute to their achievement. …
The Inter-governmental Panel’s work must remain on target, and we must not allow ourselves to be diverted into fruitless and divisive argument. Time is too short for that. …”
DaveG says (April 14, 2013 at 5:51 pm): “Margret Thacher would not put up with the fraud that the AGW crowd has perpetrated on the world.”
==============================================================
Really? She was apparently one of the main perpetrators. I suggest everyone reads her speech to United Nations General Assembly, 1989 Nov 8 (http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/107817), quote: http://thatcher-1.pen.io/