Sections

Services

Information

UK United Kingdom

Margaret Thatcher: Tales of Power and Vainglory

The most telling tale in Charles Moore’s winsome biography of Margaret Thatcher spotlights the moment of her greatest political triumph: the military defeat of Argentina in mid-June 1982, after a 74-day war that cost nearly a thousand lives on windswept islands in the south Atlantic. With Union Jacks fluttering high in the skies of Britain, Prime Minister Thatcher flung herself into the detailed planning of the glorious victory celebrations. When the Dean of St Paul’s wanted to include a Spanish version of the Lord’s Prayer in the thanksgiving service, Thatcher’s eyes reportedly ‘widened in absolute horror’. At the clergy’s suggestion that the service be one of ‘reconciliation’, Thatcher ‘struck the table a tremendous blow’, snarled the words ‘A service of reconciliation!’, then threatened to go public, to denounce the wishy-washy lassitude of the clergy. Some hours later, instead of the Queen, she took the salute at a victory march-past in the City of London. At a victory dinner at No. 10, she praised ‘the spirit of Britain’ and quoted the Duke of Wellington: ‘There is no such thing as a little war for a great nation.’ Her dinner guests were hugely impressed. ‘She spoke like Queen Elizabeth I’, recalled the senior diplomat Sir David Goodall. ‘She looked like Queen Elizabeth I!’

On the battlefield: Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the South Atlantic, 1983 opinione.it

Prone to xenophobia, consistently hard-line, indulgent of state power, a political fighter blinded by hubris, on occasion a table-thumper: all these qualities land a hard blow against the more tender-hearted Margaret Thatcher that Charles Moore tries to project in the first instalment of his two-part ‘authorised’ biography. Moore rightly observes that his subject is ‘someone about whom it is almost impossible to be neutral’, but thanks to his prodding and probing of previously inaccessible letters, diaries and interviews with her colleagues, friends and family, we learn that the Iron Lady indeed had a private life – an ascetic life ‘with no space for self-examination’.

When plumbing the depths of her private life, Moore reveals that quite early in her political career she developed a taste for mixing in Tory circles dominated by ‘the well-off, the ex-military and the landed Etonians’. Moore is particularly attracted to her role as a woman within these circles. Instead of tackling the all-important question of how democracies can create spaces for dignified tough women who bring a different style to high politics, he wraps her in gendered imagery, domesticates her, especially in the opening sections of the biography. ‘Her handbag became the sceptre of her rule’, he says. Every decision she takes, every move she makes comes dressed in heels, brown tops, black hats, half-yards of peach curtain material, nightdresses and perms. When Margaret Thatcher moves to No. 10, she insists on paying for a new ironing board out of her own pocket. When Maggie cleans, she does so with ‘characteristic domestic enthusiasm’. Moore also notes that a significant factor in Mrs Thatcher’s political success was her ‘female conscientiousness’.

What kind of ‘female conscientiousness’ drove Margaret Thatcher? Was it her definition of breakfast: black coffee and vitamin C tablets while listening to the BBC World Service and Radio 4? Or perhaps her early support for the legalisation of abortion, the de-criminalisation of homosexuality, the return of birching and the withdrawal of free milk in schools? Or that the milk snatcher sometimes sent flowers, with hand-written notes offering ‘the scent of flowers from an English country garden for you’. Or (to speak in her language) that she typically played the role of a man’s woman, a figure of power whose perfume, bold lipstick and taste for whisky intoxicated more than a few men, including junior minister Alan Clark (he confessed to Moore he didn’t want ‘actual penetration – just a massive snog’) and French President François Mitterand, who famously described her as a leader blessed with the eyes of the Roman emperor Caligula and the lips of Marilyn Monroe.

Margaret Thatcher and François Mitterrand after signing the Channel-Tunnel Canterbury treaty between France and Britain, February 1986 abc.net.au

The oddly unconvincing feature of Moore’s effort to rescue Mrs Thatcher from obloquy by invoking her ‘femininity’ is her unequivocal personal rejection of any such talk. The mother of twins was always so profoundly irritated by questions about being a woman that her press officers had to warn foreign journalists off the subject. In both word and deed, Thatcher expressed hostility towards feminism, which explains why Britain’s first female head of government insisted on being known as the first British prime minister with a science degree. ‘Who are you?’, she asked Dr John Ashworth, the Chief Scientist, as he entered No. 10 for the first time. ‘I am your Chief Scientist’, Ashworth replied. ‘Oh,’ said Thatcher, sharply, ‘do I want one of those?’ Ashworth explained he was preparing a report in the new subject area of climate change. Thatcher hurled a fierce stare. “Are you standing there and seriously telling me that my government should worry about the weather?’ She then announced to the Chief Scientist that her government had no room for a minister for science. ‘I’m a scientist’, she said. ‘I shall be my own Minister for Science.’

The chief flaw in this biography is that in spite of a marvellous myriad of such details it has no articulated thesis, no parables, no memorable conclusions. Perhaps Moore’s planned second volume will offer good reasons for remembering Margaret Thatcher. That is after all the point of biography: to lift individuals out of time and to confer upon them a form of immortality. Trapped within the biographical method of persuasion through induction – one damned ‘fact’ after another – this biography instead leads readers nowhere. Some part of the problem surely stems from its ‘authorised’ status. Charles Moore, editor of the conservative The Daily Telegraph from 1995-2003, was handpicked by Thatcher as her official biographer, on the condition that the finished work be published posthumously. Thatcher’s choice paid off. Charles Moore thinks like a Tory, writes like a Tory, for an imaginary heartland Tory audience. He supposes that the remarkable ‘facts’ of Thatcher’s life will automatically win over his readers, that the stories he tells speak for themselves, proving even to faint hearts that she will forever remain ‘a national archetype’, a figure as great as ‘Henry VIII, or Elizabeth I, or Nelson, or Winston Churchill’.

The No! No! No! speech to the House of Commons, 30 October 1990

Is Margaret Thatcher to be remembered in this way? A valiant fighter for Britain against waverers and weaklings in Europe and elsewhere? She certainly thought so. Immediately after her enforced resignation (in 1990), she was asked what had changed during her eleven-year leadership of the country. She answered with a single word: ‘Everything’. The pity of this biography is both its failure to confront the hubris buried in that utterance and its strange complacency about the massive political questions Mrs Thatcher bequeathed to Britain, and to the wider world. Are military adventures fuelled by pompous talk of ‘the people’ damaging to democracies? Did Thatcher’s policy commitment to ‘sweeping Britain clean of socialism’ through de-regulation and privatisation and hostility to ‘Europe’ pave the way to the present banking crisis and its terrible aftermath? Why did she leave a legacy of hatred in parts of Northern Ireland, so staunch (one of her favourite words) that some communities celebrated her recent passing by burning her effigy, and by plastering walls with the bitter words, ‘Iron Lady Rust in Peace’? And when historians look back on her thumping flag-waving reign, will they be inclined to see that by promoting the vices of ‘greed, selfishness, no care for the weaker, sharp elbows, sharp knees’ (Glenda Jackson) she destroyed the conditions of fair-mindedness and universal citizenship? A Britain where life for many millions of people has come to resemble Hobbes’s state of nature: more solitary, poorer, nastier, brutish and short? Scribble on, Charles Moore, but don’t dare dodge these tough but consequential questions.

Kicking Up a Racket: Belfast punk band, Stiff Little Fingers, playing ‘Fly the Flag’, an anti-tribute to ‘narrow-minded’ Margaret Thatcher, Dortmund, Germany, 30 November 1980

A shorter version of this review first appeared in The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald.

Join the conversation

25 Comments sorted by

  1. Dale Bloom

    Analyst

    Without the revenue from North Sea oil propping up the UK economy, it is totally unlikely Margaret Thatcher would have been Prime Minister for so long.

    Similarly, Julia Gillard only looked good (to some) because the mining boom was propping up the Australian economy during her time as Prime Minister of Australia.

    However, it now becomes interesting what occurs in the UK after the release of a study showing the UK has possibly the biggest oil shale reserves in the world.

    “Britain has just won the world's biggest energy jackpot, potentially worth a staggering £1trillion. Yesterday it emerged that the United Kingdom not only holds the biggest shale basin in the world but that Britain most likely has the biggest shale reserves worldwide.”

    http://www.publicserviceeurope

    report
  2. Pat Moore

    gardener

    Thanks John...Perhaps Moore's is more of a hagiography without 'thesis, parables or conclusions' than a biography, especially considering such gems/ contract fulfilling paeans including Mrs Thatcher in Britania's historical pantheon along with 'Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, Nelson or Churchill' no less...such few but heady names assembled to elevate the shopkeeper's neoliberal evangelical daughter to illustrious heights. A technique of aspirational intention itself that nevertheless falls flat like a…

    Read more
  3. Gerard Dean

    Managing Director

    The comment, 'Thatcher expressed hostility towards feminism' proves she was in fact, the ultimate feminist.

    How so? She rejected the feminist label of because she wanted to be judged on her merits and not her sex.

    Surely that is as it should be.

    Gerard Dean
    Glen Iris

    report
    1. David Thompson

      Marketing Research

      In reply to Gerard Dean

      Indeed. Real feminism is about action - doing stuff - not sitting around cafes and tutorials rooms gossiping and bitching.

      report
  4. Ian Bolton

    Farmer

    Once again when it comes to Thatcher the unmentionable is still unmentioned. Her support of terrorism, from her referring to the brutal mass murderer General Pinochet as a lovely man and her dear friend to her support of the Pol Pot regime where after years of denial she finally had to admit to parliament that she had been using the British special forces to Supply the Khmer Rouge with land mines and train them in there use, is still kept quite. Thousands were killed and many more children and innocent peasants were left as amputees. To compare her to Churchill is an insult to Churchill. The big difference is that Churchill played a big part in defeating Hitler, the biggest terrorist in modern times, while Thatcher supported the biggest terrorist since Hitler's death. Surely it is time she was awarded a posthumous life sentence for war crimes.

    report
    1. David Thompson

      Marketing Research

      In reply to Ian Bolton

      "The big difference is that Churchill played a big part in defeating Hitler, the biggest terrorist in modern times, while Thatcher supported the biggest terrorist since Hitler's death."
      Actually Thatcher played a big part in defeating Nazism's parent - Socialism.

      report
    2. John Perry

      Teacher

      In reply to David Thompson

      "Nazism's parent - Socialism."

      Pffft. I love how people can write and say that sort of stuff with a straight face.

      report
    3. David Thompson

      Marketing Research

      In reply to John Perry

      John, if you are not aware of the relationship between Socialism and Nazism, post-WWI, you best hit the books!

      report
  5. Neil James

    Executive Director, Australia Defence Association

    As an apolitical organisation the ADA offers no comment on the obvious political biases of this review except to regret the lack of academic-grade objectivity.

    However, the biggest flaw in John's analysis - within the ADA's role - is a failure to place the Falklands War in its global strategic context as a major contributor to restraining Soviet thinking during the latter stages of the Cold War.

    All wars (and many other strategic contests) are ultimately contests of will and end when one side…

    Read more
    1. Gordon Smith

      Private citizen

      In reply to Neil James

      Unfortunately The Conversation (as much as I love it) constantly leads one to "regret the lack of academic-grade objectivity.
      This is a tragedy for academia and it's reputation in the community.

      report
    2. David Thompson

      Marketing Research

      In reply to Neil James

      The complete tin ear to history is what is so shocking about this review.

      report
    3. David Thompson

      Marketing Research

      In reply to Gordon Smith

      Gordon, do you think this points to a broader malaise throught academia entirely, or just the particular aims of the TC, and thus the types is selects to write articles?

      report
  6. Sean Lamb

    Science Denier

    Thatcher once said she was also the first scientist to be Prime Minister but no one ever remarked on that. I wonder if that is as much explanatory of her approach to politics as anything. She seemed to show a dourness, a black and white rejection of nuance and a desire for simple all-encompassing models or paradigms that is the hallmark of scientists. It would also explain her early adoption of climate change.

    She was actually an X-ray crystallographer. All structural biologists are a rather peculiar lot, but the x-ray crystallographers are the most socially challenged of all of them.

    report
  7. Mat Hardy

    Lecturer in Middle East Studies at Deakin University

    a figure as great as ‘Henry VIII, or Elizabeth I, or Nelson, or Winston Churchill’

    Except that three out of four of them were born to rule (admittedly Churchill had to deal with pesky ballot boxes though). Nelson is the only real comparison - the sixth son of a country rector. But whereas Thatcher basked in the regard of the Establishment, Nelson was often challenging of the status quo and the toadies of Whitehall and the Admiralty

    He was also fortunate enough to keep out of the mire of politics and stick to what he was good at.

    report
    1. David Thompson

      Marketing Research

      In reply to Mat Hardy

      "But whereas Thatcher basked in the regard of the Establishment"
      Mat, hardly, Thatcher destroyed the Establishment of her time - the socialised industries, their trade unions, and Labour Party kin. What Hobsbawn coined "labour aristocracy".

      report
    2. Gerard Dean

      Managing Director

      In reply to David Thompson

      "But whereas Thatcher basked in the regard of the Establishment"

      Say what! The establishment tolerated her because she was the conservative Prime Minister, but that didn't stop her kicking them as well as every other group.

      Like her or loathe her, she was her own woman.

      Gerard Dean
      Glen Iris

      report
    3. Mat Hardy

      Lecturer in Middle East Studies at Deakin University

      In reply to Gerard Dean

      As the article (and the biographer) says "quite early in her political career she developed a taste for mixing in Tory circles dominated by ‘the well-off, the ex-military and the landed Etonians’.

      report
    4. David Thompson

      Marketing Research

      In reply to Mat Hardy

      I'm surprised the author didn't title his piece "Uppity Woman".

      report
  8. Gerard Dean

    Managing Director

    Thatcher's legacy is written across Australia.

    Without her, I doubt the Big 4, Hawke, Keating, Howard and Costello would have succeeded in the massive economic and societal reforms Australia needed to retain our standard of living.

    Hawke curbed excessive union power through consensus and breaking the pilots strike, Keating through privatising poorly functioning government agencies and floating the A$, Howard through workplace reform and cleaning up the corrupt docks and Costello through his…

    Read more
  9. Pat Moore

    gardener

    History wars, culture wars. The official truths of the imperial hegemony, including as in this case, one of its sidekicks'/ 'coalition of the willing partners' dominant discourses via an official 'authorised' biography of a pivotal, neoliberal leader, in seeking to privilege itself as the one and only 'history' is a lie which can no longer be pressed as the truth. The official, authorized version is no longer recognized as the one & only history. Histories are plural. Whitewashing regime changed…

    Read more