Margaret thatcher

Margaret Thatcher is the most significant British political figure of the past 50 years. In her time in office, she transformed the British economy, promoted the vigorous virtues and offered strength and support to the dissidents of Eastern Europe and. On top of all this, she was — of course — Britain’s first female Prime Minister. In future, people will find it hard to believe just how nationalised Britain’s economy was before the Thatcher revolution. As she said in her 1982 conference speech, ‘How absurd it will seem in a few years' time that the State ran Pickford's removals and Gleneagles Hotel.’ With the benefit of hindsight, it is easy to underestimate the state of crisis that this country was in before Margaret Thatcher’s election in 1979.

It is testament to Margaret Thatcher’s remarkable influence on British politics that 33 years after she won her first general election victory she still has such a hold on our political discourse. One of the things that the Tory party needs to do is understand both why Thatcher was so successful and how she changed Britain. In an interview with The Spectator this week, Elizabeth Truss, the new education minister who proudly describes herself as a ‘bit of a Thatcherite’, offers an interesting take on the question.

George Osborne’s spirited bid in The Times (£) earlier this week  to appropriate the Obama victory for the Tories is a curious mirror image of the Labour Party’s arguments to the same effect. Both ignore the reality that the US is the US, not us, and Obama is Obama; formulas for election success aren’t a peel-off/stick-on tattoo, to be transferred between one body politic and another. But the article was interesting for what it told us about the Chancellor himself, quite apart from a slightly nerdy obsession with American elections. The fifth and decisive point in his piece was all about how social liberalism plus fiscal conservatism was the key to electoral success.

Charles Moore’s biography of Margaret Thatcher promises to be the most important British political book in decades. Tonight, we got a preview of it when Charles delivered the Centre for Policy Studies’ second Margaret Thatcher lecture. The subject was Thatcher and Europe. I won’t say too much about it because we’re running a version of it in the coming issue of The Spectator. But one thing that Charles demonstrated was that even when Thatcher was campaigning for British membership of the European Community, as then was, she was never in favour of the European project. One of the other thing that Charles’s lecture brought out was the shift in the balance of power in the Tory party on Europe.

A big-tent turnout on Saturday evening for the fourtieth birthday of Conor Burns, the Tory MP for Bournemouth West. Burns, fresh from his heroic rebellion against Lords reform, packed the State Rooms of the Palace of Westminster with a big crowd of rising Tory stars and some old stagers including Lord Lamont and Sir Mark Thatcher. Burns is a close friend of Baroness Thatcher; and although the great Lady was unable to join, she did some send some pearls of wisdom in her place. Burns reported that when he had told Lady Thatcher that his friend and speech-giver Thomas Docherty, who has been Burns' voting pair since they both arrived in Westminster in 2010, sat on the opposition benches she replied: ‘Good, it means you can trust him.’ Sound words, as ever.

Westminster's favourite shaggy-haired do-gooder Andrew Mitchell has been spilling his heart out to Total Politics about Maggie: ‘To me, she was a goddess. When she walked down the  corridors, I used to stand stiffly to attention and hope she would pass by.’ Far too much information from the International Development Secretary, who is known to keep a bowl of condoms in on his ministerial desk, as part of a worldwide health campaign, of course.

To mark the 30th anniversary of the start of the Falklands War, here's Ferdinand Mount's column from the time: The last armada, Ferdinand Mount, 10 April 1982 A debacle speaks for itself. All things that inescapably follow — the humiliation, the indignation, the ministers hurrying in and out of Cabinet, the spectacular sitting of Parliament on a Saturday, the calls for the resignation of Mr John Nott, Lord Carrington and anyone else standing in the line of fire — are not only themselves part and parcel of the debacle; they help to explain why it happened. The Falkland Islanders are the last victims of our refusal to be honest with ourselves; we have clung to the rhetoric of empire long after we have lost the desire or the ability to maintain its reality.

It is a sign of the influence that Steve Hilton has on the Cameron project that there have been more column inches devoted to his departure from Downing Street than there would be to most Cabinet resignations. But even after he heads to California in May, Hilton will still be part of the Cameron brains trust. He is already scheduled to work on the Prime Minister’s conference speech. Hilton has, I understand, been mulling the idea of taking a sabbatical since last summer. His decision to go ahead and take next year off seems to have been motivated by a variety of factors. But those closest to him stress that family reasons genuinely were key. This is not to say that Hilton is not frustrated.

The Times has a fascinating interview (£) with former Soviet leader, Nobel Laureate and two-time Man of the Year Mikhail Gorbachev. He strikes an optimistic tone about the future of democracy in Russia, praising the ‘Moscow Spring’ protesters and saying ‘This is the right moment to start creating as part of this new situation a strong democratic party.’ But perhaps the most eye-catching comes when he compares Vladimir Putin with Margaret Thatcher: ‘Mr Gorbachev recalled Mrs Thatcher, Prime Minister at the time, telling him that she was leaving a summit in Paris early to deal with the challenge to her leadership from within the Conservative Party.

The feeding frenzy over Liam Fox tells us a great deal more about what is wrong with the Conservative Party than it does about Dr. Fox. The Defence Secretary has been an ass. He admits that he allowed “distinctions to be blurred” between his “professional responsibilities and [his] personal loyalties to a friend”. But if someone has known you and counselled you and worked for you over the years it is all but impossible to maintain such distinctions when you are in power. You just have to cut them off, brutally. Fox’s biggest weakness, and one which was well known before this, is that he is too kind. You might say he is too human. It made him a good doctor. But in the higher echelons of politics or business it is a fault.