Mrs Thatcher and the leadership
Patrick Cosgrave
No regular reader of this column can doubt the esteem in which I hold Mrs Margaret Thatcher, now the foremost contender for the place currently occupied, however temporarily, by the most unsuccessful political leader of modern times, Mr Edward Heath. Like other contestants, Mrs Thatcher could hardly fail to be a better leader than Mr Heath; and, given her remarkable qualities of intellect and character would, in my judgement, be a particularly good one. There is another thing about her which should be emphasised: whatever dirty tricks are played on Mrs Thatcher they are likely to enhance rather than weaken her will to enter the lists, though Mr Heath's servants — particularly his once and present chief of staff, Mr Peter Walker — do not seem yet to have grasped that fact.
Consider some of the things that have happened to Mrs Thatcher since she declared herself a contender in the leadership stakes; and consider whether they can all have been accidental. The first and most notorious thing that happened was the re-issue to the press of an interview she had given more than two months previously to a brand new magazine, Pre-retirement Choice, the object of which is to help folk on the verge of retirement to plan their lives in inevitably reduced circumstances. Mrs Thatcher's counsel amounted to this — that it was wise and prudent to buy in bulk where one could, and to buy and store as eheaply as possible and, further, that this was particularly the case in dealing with more expensive foodstuffs; for pensioners, though shorter of cash in retirement than during their working lives, would nonetheless have occasions in which they wanted to splurge and — in her view — this was easier to do if one took thought for the future.
Admirable advice, one would have thought; and just the sort of sensible thing one's mother used to do. Even in point of logic the policy could be commended, since those who buy a particular foodstuff when it is plentiful and cheap have stocks of it when it becomes scarce, and thus create less pressure in a market afflicted by dearth. None of these points were made in the newspapers in defence of Mrs Thatcher's harmless and, indeed, kindly article. Instead, a storm of hysteria burst about her head, mainly inspired by a press reckless for sensation but inspired, I am convinced, by more self-interested and irresponsible folk as well. Take, for example, Lord Redmayne, a former senior Conservative and ally of Mr Heath and now a storekeeper. Lord Redmayne abused Mrs Thatcher for hoarding (which sounds like an eighth deadly sin) and for encouraging hoarding. I could not myself imagine that so eminent and disinterested a citizen was enjoining on a former colleague a policy he would not adopt himself; or a policy he would not urge on the businesses he advised. And so, I waited to hear that Lord Redmayne had persuaded the shop in which he is particularly interested to withdraw deep freezes from their sale list — for what are these,after all, if not machines for hoarding? I waited in vain.
A mad press, and mad media generally, went about the business of hounding Mrs Thatcher — with a little help. Some help was provided by a certain Mr Tallis (if he exists). 'Mr Tallis; called a certain celebrated radio programme and asserted that Mrs Thatcher had tried, during the early part of the sugar shortage, to purchase large quantities of that substance at his shop in Finchley High Road. He had, he said, refused her imprecations, and thought that the public should know how righteously be, and how unrighteously she, had behaved. Mrs Thatcher was in Gloucester when this intervention occurred and it was, naturally, some time before she could instruct her advisers to rebut the slander — for it will, of course, be no surprise to you to learn that Mrs Thatcher never or rarely shops in Finchley High Road, and that 'Mr Tallis', wherever he may trade, does not trade there. The whole business was on a par with another accusation, to the effect that Mrs Thatcher does a part of her hoarding from the well-stocked shelves of Messrs Fortnum and Mason, though she has not used that shop within the last decade.
These things, and others like them, happened, we are asked to believe, by accident. I believe I will be able, some time before the Douglas-Home committee reports, to report incidents of a like nature, and suggest a suspiciously ordered pattern to them. For the moment all I wish to suggest is this: that a political climate in which an honourable politician can be traduced in this way, in which this sort of thing can happen to a senior politician without a hand being raised in her defence from the headquarters of her party, and in which scarcely a newspaper was willing to investigate the matter fairly, can hardly be a healthy one.
But it is my colleague Bill Grundy who examines the doings of the press: my business is politics. I have had occasion earlier this year to remark on the sorry state of the organisation of the Conservative Party, and to reflect on how far its members were fallen from the high standards of service to the party, as opposed to any particular, even leading, member of the party, which had once inspired it. The situation is worse by far today, for too many of the servants of the party are now not merely engaged in serving the duly elected leader, but in actively intriguing against those who seek honourably to replace him. Such a situation is , not merely dishonourable, but impossible: for the new leader who replaces Mr Heath will be
Spectator December 14, 1974 obliged, unless he is himself a lackey of the failure he succeeds, to sweep out such people as have engaged in these degrading manoeuvres. For, how could he trust them? W
Nor is this a matter of concern only the
successor. It is a matter that should concern all Conservatives, whether voluntary activists or bureaucrats. No bureaucracy can survive, or do its job properly, if it seeks to choose between the masters it may have to serve. Yet, again and again since last February, the machine of Central Office has been used as an instrument in the leadership crisis of the Conservative Party, both positively and negatively. It has been used positively, in the account given to press and public of the measure of support Mr Heath is supposed to enjoy among the followers of the party in the country. It has been used negatively in the sense that neither Sir Keith Joseph nor Mrs Thatcher were defended openly and strongly by a machine the vigilance of which, in defence of even the Most minor Tory politician deemed to have suffered offence from an article or a radio or television programme, was, until recently, legendary. It may be that Mr Heath has placed a ban un defence of any colleague who might be a rival, just as he takes studious care to avoid nominating Sir Keith Joseph as Conservative spokesman in any major Commons debate. It may be that the serious efforts to displace More than one honoured and long-serving member ef the party's bureaucracy are to be taken further, and to lead to a cleaning out of all but the lackeys. But there is surely somebody in either Central Office or the Research Department who has the moral courage to continue doing his job, in the face of whatever pressures? Mr Heath and his lieutenants are ftghting' cunningly, ruthlessly, and wholly without scruple to keep his job for him. Not all of theni are as fanatically devoted to him as others. Mr Walker and Mr Gilmour, for example, know perfectly well that neither would be a candidate for the leadership in a spring election; their interest is to postpone everything until IVIr Heath loses another election, by which tirne they would hope themselves to mount challenge. Only this have they in common Wit" the present, and purely nominal, leader: theY„ put their own interest ahead of the interest or the party. That is the great usefulness to the partY Parliament and in the country of anYhouY prepared now to offer an alternative choice. An alternative is, just by existing, in the interests of the party; and it is difficult to imagine theti the mass of Conservative members would ftair to choose an alternative who stands In_ something recognisably Conservative over the is defeated battered and dishonoured corpse of a defeated leader who does not know when he .1s not wanted. Of course, anybody out in front Int the leadership stakes can expect a Mel horrendous battering, from media and co2: leagues alike. Not the least service which Thatcher is now doing her party is demonstrating her utter refusal to be deflected bYa such a battering. It is an experience whichtois endure than would a man. But Mrs Thatcher woman might expect to find more difficult made of stern stuff, and cannot be frightened off: Her quality of courage and endurain under fire is something the poor old Tory PaR.di now badly needs in its own struggle win. circumstance" and fortune. I am fairly Chip vinced that it will recognise its visceral kinsirl; with a woman who is now the foremost Tory the country.
Previous page
