Opinion

The Great Debate

Margaret Thatcher, an enlarger of British freedom

By Sir Harold Evans
April 8, 2013

My immediate and lasting  memory of Mrs. Thatcher — Maggie as we called her — is sitting next to her in the late sixties at a dinner table as she scorched a bunch of City of London financial types. I was astonished. She wasn’t yet the Iron Lady. She wasn’t  in government. Labour was in power. She was  an obscure back bench Conservative MP, elected only in 1959, noticed in those sexist days (has much changed?) as much for her hats and aggressive hair style as for  her passionate defence of grammar schools under threat of closure from Labour.

What she did with the City of London men  was later characterised as a  “hand-bagging.” A black Asprey bag she always carried was metaphorically wielded against people she saw as standing in the way of the greatness of Britain as Boudica, the leader of a British tribe, wielded a lance against the Roman occupiers. I suppose that as a new national editor (of The Sunday Times), and with normal male presumption , I had expected to lead the questioning of the ten or so big names and the table. I didn’t stand a chance. Maggie pounded and pummeled them all by herself for an hour. I can’t pretend this is verbatim but it went something like this: “All you people are interested in is moving paper around, making money not things. What are you doing for British industry? When are you going to help business stand up to  the unions?”  They murmured, they shuffled, they were outclassed. British elections — six weeks to  a vote and no paid television ads — have never been as corrupted by money as much as American, so she was not turning off a potential source of funding as an American candidate would fear to do. Still these were  men — all men of course  — who were influential and articulate and used to reverence not rebuke.

Maggie could be seductive in private conversation one on one, more so as she matured,  the strident voice of the public halls giving way to a softer, more seductive style, hand on an arm, intent eye to eye in persuasion. She was afraid of nobody, respecter of no convention she considered archaic. The British custom at dinner parties was always for the host to murmur “coffee?” which was signal for “the ladies” to leave for the powder room while the men, over cigars and port, got down to serious business. It was  a small sensation — regarded in some circles as a grave breach of etiquette — when at a dinner party I attended thrown by her egregious confidante Woodrow Wyatt, Maggie stayed in her seat unabashed, uninvited,  and unfazed by the  arguments over the cigars (in this case by a couple of captains of industry who wanted to be part of Europe and she defiantly raised the Union Jack).

The trade unions at the time were busy wreaking havoc on industry. The far left had infiltrated Labour constituencies; Labour candidates were as scared of the militants then as primary Republicans of the Tea Party candidates today.  Local union chiefs called wildcat strikes, disrupted production.  The union movement, with some Labour ministers in support, threatened a closed shop in the press which would have curtailed free speech. I’d spoken out against it as had the  then editor of The Guardian, Alastair Hetherington. At another of those endless London dinners where Maggie  was the speaker and still not in government,  she referred to me as “one of us.” I wasn’t. I was just expressing a view on an issue. We had many things in common, both from the north, both educated in state schools, both brought up in a grocer’s shop, in my case one my mother started, in hers one her father ran. I admired her.  I was one of the millions of voters in the 1979  general election  which put her into power as the first woman prime minister. The country  was in dreadful shape, fearful and anxious during a winter of discontent in which trade union militants blocked cancer patients getting treatment and garbage piled up in  the center of London.

She saved Britain from anarchy and immediately restored a sense of purpose. She could be rough. As Prime Minister,  she had a limited tolerance for dissent and an infinite regard for personal loyalty. If you were not with on her everything, she  regarded you as disloyal, as unreliable, lacking conviction.  I suppose it was the reverse mirror of her indomitable courage. How valiant she was when the IRA terrorists blew up her conference hotel; they tried to murder her and almost succeeded.  She was often vindicated. She was impatient with excuses for inertia and woolliness — vividly represented  in Meryl Streep’s representation of her cutting off a Cabinet member in mid speech.  I disappointed her by giving space in The Times  to critics, especially one of them, Edward Heath,  whom she’d ousted as Prime Minister. The imperatives of news meant we published  news stories she didn’t like: she’d  sunk in the polls and recession deepened. Relations became a little chillier. As an editor, I’d never sought to cosy up  to political leaders,  but I now understand more of what she was up against – the Tory snobs in the counties,  the plotters in the party who eventually betrayed her, the “wets” and the “wimps”  who would yield on a principle she considered vital.

When she became Prime Minister I was editor of The Times. We backed her a hundred per cent on trade union reforms, on holding the line on pay, especially in the public sector and  on advocating more competition in the banking industry, on free trade, on resisting terrorism in Northern Ireland. I told her I  thought she moved too slowly against trade union anarchy, but she bided her time and planned well.   She won a famous victory against the coal miners, badly led by a firebrand who took money from Gaddafi, and it was thanks to her stalwart support  of Rupert Murdoch, whom she admired as a free-booting entrepreneur , that he was able to win the battle of Wapping which ended the guerilla warfare of the print unions.

Margaret Thatcher, whatever the missteps, will  take her place in the pantheon of heros – sorry, heroines – who enlarged British freedom.

PHOTO: A portrait left by mourners is seen outside the home of former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher after her death was announced in London April 8, 2013. REUTERS/Suzanne Plunkett

Comments
3 comments so far | RSS Comments RSS

What a vivid description of your intimate encounter with our beloved Margaret.
Unfortunately, you disgraced your country and your former prime Minister, by uttering racism comments to Chinese Americans in your recent publication in thedailybeast “The Persecution of Ping Fu”.

In your paper, you called Ms. Lin, the Chinese American who gave the Fu Ping’s book with negative reviews as “Male, female, or hermaphrodite”.
You called or hinted that the Chinese Americans (who questioned the truthfulness of Ping’s memoir) as “the commentators hired by the Chinese government or Communist Party to steer a discussion away from anti-party content.” “army” of assailants, army of Chinese bloggers, hate campaign is organized by Chinese-Americans, “proud of their country of origin, or by bloggers in China, acting on their own or encouraged by party and government”
However, you make these assertions without providing any evidence.
It’s been about two month, you have not make any public announcement either you stand by your statement, or you apologize for this accusation without evidence.

Posted by zfan | Report as abusive
 

MARGRET THATCHER`S MICROWAVE OVEN WAS AND IS AN INNOVATION

AN OPINION

THE FOLLOWING IS ONLY MY CURRENT OPINION THAT MAY CHANGE UPON FURTHER WISDOM. THIS OPINION IS NOT MEANT TO HARM, HURT, OPPRESS, DISENFRANCHISE. IF YOU DIFFERENCIATE FROM MY OPINION, IT’S JUST AN OPINION DON’T ALLOW YOURSELF TO GET TOO EXCITED. I HOPE AND TRUST ALL WILL ENJOY THIS CURRENT OPINION BELOW:

“Margaret Thatcher, an enlarger of British freedom!”
MICROWAVE OVEN IS AN INNOVATION
I BELIEVE MAGGIE USE TO BE A SCIENTIST WHO INVENTED THE MICROWAVE OVEN, WHICH MOST HOMES HAVE, UNFORTUNETELY.

I BELIEVE RUSSIA TOTALLY BANNED MICROWAVE OVENS FROM ITS COUNRTY BECAUSE OF THE RESEACH THEY FOUND OUT.

MAGGIE’S INVENTION OF HARNESSING MICROWAVES TO COOK IN A SMALL APPLIANCE FOR CONVENIENCE APPEARS AS A COLLOSAL BENEFIT TO PEOPLES’ LIVES.

MICROWAVES ARE SEVERE BURNING WAVES OF AUTHENTIC RADIATION BEING USED TO SO-CALL-COOK FOOD.

RADIATION SHE HARNESSED ALSO LEAKS OUT OF MICROWAVE OVENS AS LONG AS THEIR PLUG IN.

FOR HOW MANY YEARS HAS MICROWAVE RADIATION SHE HARNESSED BEEN USED TO COOK YOUR FOODS AND THAT’S RADIO-ACTIVE-MATERIALS BEING USED. THIS RADIOACTIVE COOKING DESTROYS ALL THE ELEMENTS, MINERALS, PROTEINS ECT, BUT APPEARS EATIBLE MATERIAL. YOU STOMACH CANNOT BREAKDOWN THE MICROWAVE RADIATED FOOD BECAUSE OF STRUTURAL CHANGES CAUSED BY COOKING WITH RADIO-ACTIVE-MATERIALS.

OVER YEARS OF EATING THIS DEGRADED FOODS IT IS LODGED IN OUR BODY, BUT IT TAKES YEARS BEFORE SYMTOMS WILL SHOW UP, AND NO ONE WILL EVEN THINK IT WAS THE MICROWAVE’S RADIO-ACTIVE-MATERIAL THAT CAUSED THEIR MEDICAL SITUATIONS.

DO NOT STAND BESIDE THE FOOD STORE CASHIER WHERE THE PRICE SCANNER IS, ESPECIALL AT THE GROCERY CHAINS THAT HAVE SCANNING YOUR OWN FOODS AND PAY FOODSERVICES BECAUSE THESE SCANNERS OPERATE ON RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS, LIKE HAVING AN XRAY.

ONE MORE, THOSE TALL THIN SECURITY BARRIERS PEOPLE WALK BETWEEN JUST BEFORE GOING OUT THE EXIT DOORS-IT’S POWERFUL LIKE HAVING AN XRAY TAKEN OF YOU EACH TIME YOU PASS BETWEEEN THE TWO STORE SECURITY BARRIERS.

LASTLY SEPARATE THE CONNECTION AND TAKE DOWN YOUR SMOKE DETECTOR THAT IS HARDWIRED TO THE PROPERTY.

MAYBE WHEN YOU READ THE BOTTOM, YOU MAY HAVE TO USE A MAGNAFYING GLASS TOO, AND YOU WILL MOST LIKELY FIND THAT IT CONTAINS “RADIO ACTIVE MATERIALS.” IT LEAKS RADIATION TOO.

CELL PHONES USE MICROWAVES TO TRANSMIT INFORMATION, BUT WHAT ARE MICROWAVES, AGAIN?

THAT’S CORRECT; MICROWAVES ARE BURNING WAVES MADE OF RADIO ACTIVE MATERIALS.
IT’S OUR LIFE AND IT’S OUR PERSONAL HEALH.

WHAT A MAGNIFICANT WAY OF SLOWLY CULLING MASSES OF PEOPLE.

HOW MAY A PERSON GO FROM BEING A SCIENTIST TO PRIME MINISTER OF THE U.K.?

ANSWER: MAYBE INVENT AN AFFORDABLE COOKING APPLIANCE THE MIDDLECLASS AND ESPECIALLY THE POOR CAN AFFORD TO PURCHASE AND AT THE SAME TIME UNKNOWINGLY TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC IT COOKS WITH AND EMITS RADIO ACTIVE MATERIALS.

THE MICROWAVE OVEN IS AN INNOVATION
TH MICROWAVE OVEN IS A CULLING MACHINE
THE MICROWAVE OVEN IT’S NOT A SLOW COOKER,
BUT IT’S A SLOW KILLER
ALL GRAMMATICAL MISCALCULATIONS ARE THE WRITERS.
I REMIND ANY ONE THIS HAS BEEN ONLY A PERSON’S OPINION.
RESPECTFULLY YOURS- I THE PREACHER
MONDAY APRIL 08, 2013 @ 21:30 M.T.
ADORAMOUS
ABBA DEUS IN CAELIS,
VADE RETRO LUCIFER, AMEN,
DEUS DET NOBIS SUAM PACHEM,
IN NOMEM CHRISTI, AMEM!

Posted by ITHEPREACHER | Report as abusive
 

Wow. An insult followed by a mad rant. Must be time for a joke. This one has been doing the rounds here in the UK: “Just seen the plans for Thatcher’s grave, it’s okay but I thought the dance floor would be bigger.” which I think we’ve probably heard before (insert name of choice) then i found this one on a comments thread (that people actually use): “To all those here complaining about commenters showing cruelty and lacking compassion- it’s what she would have wanted.” Which actually got a laugh from me.
It’s perhaps worth noting that while the elites and the media are keen to be seen to comport themselves in a proper way those who suffered from her policies in the UK have been partying since monday, in the streets, in pubs and at home in private.

Thatcher was not a leader who brought the country together.

Posted by BaronKazoo | Report as abusive
 

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
  •