:00:03. > :00:13.places. Still holding onto reasonable temperatures. There is
:00:13. > :00:31.
:00:31. > :00:36.Hello and welcome to date Lyne. Today, the American foreign
:00:36. > :00:43.secretary is in Beijing trying to persuade the Chinese to calm down
:00:43. > :00:47.at North Korea. And we debate the international legacy Margaret
:00:47. > :00:54.Thatcher has left. With me are Janet Daley of the Sunday Telegraph,
:00:54. > :01:04.mark a roach of Le Monde, Stryker Maguire and Dmitry Shishkin off.
:01:04. > :01:05.
:01:05. > :01:10.Welcome to all of you. John -- John Kerry is in China to
:01:10. > :01:15.urge them to use their influence with North Korea. How serious
:01:15. > :01:19.should we be taking the threat from North Korea and other Chinese doing
:01:19. > :01:24.anything to help? On the basis of the precautionary principle, we
:01:24. > :01:29.should take them seriously because this is safer to take them
:01:29. > :01:33.seriously than to not take them seriously. However, we have seen
:01:33. > :01:40.that the scenes from a Seoul and young people seem to be completely
:01:40. > :01:47.unbothered by what is going on. It does have a different feel to
:01:47. > :01:57.previous. In what way?We have a new leader and he is young and he
:01:57. > :02:02.
:02:02. > :02:07.is untested. Unhinged.I would say untested. The military leadership
:02:07. > :02:15.in North Korea is leaning on him a bit and we don't really know which
:02:16. > :02:23.way it could go. I do think that China can play its card at any
:02:23. > :02:32.moment and I think it can end this immediately if by telling North
:02:32. > :02:38.Korea to stop. China has been quiet itself. Whether it is playing a
:02:38. > :02:45.game or not, I don't know. Jeanette, I was interested by that word you
:02:45. > :02:50.used, unhinged. Why do you think he is unhinged? I have been watching
:02:51. > :03:00.the way he behaves. It is dangerous to think that if somebody is
:03:01. > :03:02.
:03:02. > :03:07.preposterous, he is not dangerous. It doesn't mean they can't be
:03:07. > :03:12.responsible for serious stuff on the global front. He is a young
:03:12. > :03:17.conceited, almost to the point of insanity, young man who wants to
:03:17. > :03:22.prove himself. The position of China is very interesting in this
:03:22. > :03:26.because it is on the cusp. Does it want to be seen to be in cahoots
:03:26. > :03:31.with a rogue state or does it want to join the grown-ups and become
:03:31. > :03:39.one of the world powers? If war does it not want have sole
:03:39. > :03:44.responsibility for North Korea? supplies most of North Korea's oil.
:03:44. > :03:51.He can do that entirely through sanctions. Do they want to come on
:03:51. > :04:00.to the world stage as a rational influence or do they want to
:04:00. > :04:08.maintain a best? It is a question on whether they want to manipulate
:04:08. > :04:14.currencies, hack into American websites. We have heard from this
:04:14. > :04:24.meeting with John Kerry, saying peace, dialogue and
:04:24. > :04:31.denuclearisation of the Peninsular. It is not new. I think the word is
:04:31. > :04:35.deja-vu. He feels there is constant appeasement and brinkmanship which
:04:35. > :04:45.is ongoing between North Korea behaving as if suddenly they want
:04:45. > :04:46.
:04:46. > :04:50.to forget about being in this group of rogue states. Suddenly we see
:04:50. > :04:54.footage of soldiers plunging themselves into the water waving
:04:54. > :05:01.goodbye to their dear leader who has visited them in one of their
:05:01. > :05:04.camps. It is strange and cheer and the old times a couple of years ago
:05:04. > :05:09.when the previous leader would visit Russia regularly, Russia
:05:09. > :05:19.would also have something to say about the situation. However,
:05:19. > :05:21.
:05:21. > :05:31.Russia has been extremely an active in the situation. I don't think
:05:31. > :05:34.Russia thinks of North Korea that much. Russia will have a say as a
:05:34. > :05:40.member of the Security Council but it will go back and forth for some
:05:40. > :05:46.time. I suppose they will be interested should the missile be
:05:46. > :05:53.launched in their direction. In Le Monde, we did get into the with
:05:53. > :05:58.David Canning and agreed with him when he said it is a question of
:05:58. > :06:06.North Korea. -- David Cameron. For the rest of Europe, we have to
:06:06. > :06:11.recognise the US and China have the cards to solve that problem. We are
:06:11. > :06:16.taking a back seat for once. We are put all our hope on the Americans
:06:17. > :06:19.and the Chinese to find a solution. The Chinese are careful in their
:06:19. > :06:26.relationship with the European Union, to show they are a good
:06:26. > :06:30.partner, we have good relationships with them and they are careful. The
:06:30. > :06:36.West agrees on the need to contain North Korea and they will be
:06:36. > :06:45.careful to not put that in jeopardy. We talk about China hold in the
:06:45. > :06:52.cards on this. Commentators are saying the United States does. One
:06:52. > :06:58.call from President Obama could solve this. Can solve what? My
:06:58. > :07:05.sense from over here is that the administration has been, but this
:07:05. > :07:10.in the US. There is not the language that we have heard in the
:07:10. > :07:18.past, the run-up to Iraq for example. They have moved military
:07:18. > :07:22.hardware though. Soft-pedalling. They have to do certain things.
:07:22. > :07:27.They have to protect troops and do things in case something happens.
:07:27. > :07:34.The Chinese, we always see they are interested in the stability but I
:07:34. > :07:40.think they don't mind right now that this is destabilising in the
:07:40. > :07:45.region, it is destabilising to the US, to Japan and it is
:07:45. > :07:50.destabilising to South Korea. Janet is right. This could be them moment
:07:50. > :07:57.to do something that they could do it any minute and me do it at the
:07:57. > :08:03.last minutes. We will find out. Baroness Thatcher died this week at
:08:03. > :08:08.the age of 87. Great Britain's first and so far only Prime
:08:08. > :08:14.Minister would be buried with a fait ceremony next Wednesday and
:08:14. > :08:20.leaders from all over the world are due to attend. -- a fall ceremony.
:08:20. > :08:25.You love her or hate her, 11 1/2 years in Downing Street brought
:08:25. > :08:31.huge change and I thought we would take a look at her legacy. Janet,
:08:31. > :08:37.what did she do for Great Britain? Where do you start? She took the
:08:37. > :08:42.British industry out of its Soviet- style post war command economy. She
:08:42. > :08:47.brought about an economic revival that nobody thought was possible. I
:08:47. > :08:52.think probably the most important, of course she made it clear that
:08:53. > :09:02.Britain was governable, because that was questionable whether they
:09:02. > :09:06.could control the country, the most important and immovable legacy is
:09:06. > :09:12.the social revolution she brought. Every single political leader now
:09:12. > :09:17.uses words like strafing and aspiration and personal ambition as
:09:17. > :09:27.accolades. Having lived here in the 1970s, they would not have been at
:09:27. > :09:28.
:09:28. > :09:31.that time. The fact that she put aspiration right at the centre of
:09:31. > :09:36.political attractiveness so that the Labour Party had to reinvent
:09:36. > :09:41.itself to cope with this fact that working-class people aspired to get
:09:41. > :09:48.up and away from their roots and their background, we have the --
:09:48. > :09:52.where they had been told by Labour that they would be looked after.
:09:52. > :10:02.All of that went in the Eighties and that is irreversible. Whatever
:10:02. > :10:04.
:10:04. > :10:09.else happens. That is why she is loved by the working class. She was,
:10:09. > :10:19.on social matters, a disaster. She was a racist with supporting
:10:19. > :10:21.
:10:21. > :10:29.apartheid, she brought all the dictators, she was homophobic. She
:10:29. > :10:37.was a destructive. She destroyed the communities in the north. The
:10:37. > :10:47.only thing she has to -- for me this she coped with it. She was
:10:47. > :10:48.
:10:48. > :10:58.tied up with the North. It is a no man's land. Not all of the North.
:10:58. > :10:58.
:10:58. > :11:05.The mining communities in the north, it is true, they were decimated.
:11:05. > :11:09.The decimation of the Mining's -- mining industry in the north, it
:11:09. > :11:15.was her having to cope with the extraordinary anti-democratic
:11:15. > :11:25.militants. She decided to destroy the working class of the North and
:11:25. > :11:28.
:11:28. > :11:34.she managed it and created that nasty, many selfish society. That
:11:34. > :11:39.is how people saw aspiration. That is how people sought money-grabbing,
:11:39. > :11:43.selfish, the word, individualism was never used with selfish in
:11:43. > :11:53.front of debt. We have now come to the point where people can be
:11:53. > :11:59.
:11:59. > :12:08.personally ambition to -- ambitious. I want to bring another person end.
:12:08. > :12:16.One thing we can say is that she does divide opinion. I think two
:12:16. > :12:22.things. One, she was transformative. At the same time, this happened
:12:22. > :12:27.with Ronald Reagan in the US, as well. These are also leaders and it
:12:27. > :12:36.is not all in their hands. They caught waves of public opinion and
:12:36. > :12:42.social movements and wrote those waves in a fairy political fashion.
:12:42. > :12:46.-- for very political fashion. Industrialisation has happened in
:12:46. > :12:51.Britain and when you go up in the north, you can't escape the anger
:12:51. > :12:56.about what happened to stop suddenly, it seemed like all the
:12:56. > :13:02.men were out of work and the woman had to go to work in call centres.
:13:02. > :13:12.It is not that simple. France and the United States, we all suffered
:13:12. > :13:22.from industrialisation. Look at the example of the German mother. It is
:13:22. > :13:24.
:13:24. > :13:31.a much more societal organisation. She has not been in power since the
:13:31. > :13:39.early 19 this -- nineties. Regardless of whether you like her
:13:39. > :13:47.or hate her, we are now seeing the consequences of her Policies which
:13:47. > :13:50.were executed more than 20 years ago. They take your point about the
:13:50. > :13:59.selfish individualism. One thing I don't understand how to sort myself
:13:59. > :14:05.is if she was a good for the individualisation and an powering a
:14:05. > :14:14.single human being to achieve their own goals, it is really hard if the
:14:14. > :14:21.whole town it uses work. What did Margaret Thatcher do feed your
:14:21. > :14:26.generation? I remember when I was a boy in the Eighties and there was
:14:26. > :14:32.influenced by one broadcaster for a political programme. I was running
:14:32. > :14:37.from one room to another, saying that if the cold war leads to a
:14:37. > :14:45.nuclear war, let me die but let my sister live because she is only one
:14:45. > :14:55.year old. I was six or seven. This was about the mid- Eighties with
:14:55. > :14:59.the situation was on the agenda very much. The fear was there?It
:14:59. > :15:05.was. Answering a question about why she has done to my generation, you
:15:05. > :15:09.can draw some parallels about her role in history of the world on an
:15:09. > :15:19.international stage and the role of Mikhail Gorbachev. Lots of people
:15:19. > :15:22.
:15:22. > :15:28.have drawn comparisons between how hated Mikhail Gorbachev is. He was
:15:28. > :15:38.someone who destroyed the Soviet Union, who brought not only the
:15:38. > :15:40.
:15:40. > :15:48.Iron Curtain, but some say they don't think it is here. Mikhail
:15:48. > :15:53.Gorbachev as well. She was revered in Eastern Europe. Russians like
:15:53. > :16:00.their leaders strong. Gorbachev and Thatcher represented different
:16:00. > :16:10.sides of the spectrum although they managed to draw a rapport between
:16:10. > :16:36.
:16:36. > :16:39.themselves. He was extremely Margaret Thatcher and the Polish
:16:39. > :16:42.Pope and made communism and freed the Warsaw Pact countries in the end
:16:42. > :16:49.and that is the most important achievement since the end of the
:16:49. > :16:53.war. The collapse of communism, when people just walked out from under it
:16:53. > :16:59.in East Germany and in Hungary and Poland is, that is the most
:16:59. > :17:06.extraordinary event and we do not even have the frame of reference yet
:17:06. > :17:14.to come to terms with it. Equally, I understand your point but the reason
:17:15. > :17:19.why the Eastern Bloc was freed from the Warsaw Pact and Soviet dominance
:17:19. > :17:27.was because the Soviet leader, Gorbachev, decided not to use force
:17:27. > :17:30.like his predecessors. I am sorry for Europe she was a disaster. She
:17:30. > :17:40.symbolised all what is wrong with their British attitude towards
:17:40. > :17:48.Europe. With her shopkeeper in mentality, she decided that for
:17:48. > :17:55.Europe, you put a penny in and get one out. She was completely wrong.
:17:55. > :18:03.She was wrong about the single currency. The economy of Europe is
:18:03. > :18:07.as bad at the moment... So, it is all her fault! She changed the way
:18:08. > :18:14.we deal together, instead of consensus she brought nastiness. She
:18:14. > :18:23.wanted her money back and exemptions. I think you can argue
:18:23. > :18:26.that she was wrong in beginning what Tony Blair then continued, which was
:18:26. > :18:31.the idea that Britain would be saved by its relationship with the United
:18:31. > :18:37.States. I think she was wrong about that. She did not have to turn away
:18:37. > :18:43.from Europe. Why does she believe it in the first place, was at the Le
:18:43. > :18:49.Mans with Ronald Reagan? No, it is about UK investment in this country
:18:49. > :18:53.and in the United States. It is about historical ties. It is about
:18:53. > :19:01.the Anglo-Saxon idea of democracy as opposed to the European example
:19:01. > :19:08.which has been spectacularly unsuccessful. What about the
:19:08. > :19:17.situation in the North? As if the European currency could be anything
:19:17. > :19:21.other than a disaster. Germany... You add a Thatcherite. Absolutely.
:19:21. > :19:25.Germany and France, there are successful economies have precious
:19:25. > :19:35.little to do with the EU. Germany would arguably be more successful
:19:35. > :19:36.
:19:36. > :19:40.outside the EU. What about the single market. Thanks to Thatcher A
:19:40. > :19:50.she approved of the single market. The single market is a little part
:19:50. > :19:56.of Europe. OK, Dmitri, her role and her views? Interestingly, she is
:19:56. > :20:01.being criticised for her role now for the stands she took in that she
:20:01. > :20:07.never tackled that kind of situation in South Africa. Equally, I have
:20:07. > :20:11.been reading what was said about her in Latin America currently.
:20:11. > :20:17.Argentina specifically. It is not only the Cold War which she is
:20:17. > :20:23.credited to have helped end, but not a lot of people understand that she
:20:23. > :20:31.did what she believed in and currently her legacy is about the
:20:31. > :20:36.question of many people. What about the Nelson Mandela question? It is
:20:36. > :20:41.typical of this white, Anglo-Saxon attitudes that she did not like
:20:41. > :20:45.black South Africans. She did not like the multicultural society. She
:20:45. > :20:53.would prefer the white Society of Britain. Only the successful
:20:53. > :20:59.entrepreneur she likes. She was insensitive. Unfortunately, Cameron
:20:59. > :21:05.and other conservatives have come to terms with the multi-ethnic
:21:05. > :21:12.society. -- fortunately. She was insensitive. What was her
:21:12. > :21:16.constructive engagement then? She had an enormous influence in for
:21:16. > :21:21.example the privatisation programme globally which is universally
:21:21. > :21:26.accepted. She created an economic model for a modern, capitalist but
:21:26. > :21:34.democratic society will stop this has become the model for the entire
:21:34. > :21:42.world of Europe. The balancing of the British economy is because she
:21:42. > :21:46.made it a completely free economy. I take your point, when the economy
:21:46. > :21:50.gets its money from financial economy not production it means a
:21:50. > :21:56.long-term difficult situation. Post-industrialisation happens all
:21:56. > :22:05.over Europe. I totally understand her position now to Nelson Mandela
:22:05. > :22:10.and apartheid is no considered off the charts by everybody else.
:22:10. > :22:15.need to recognise that society as a whole is consistently changing. The
:22:15. > :22:23.multiculturalism we are talking about real estate -- realistically
:22:23. > :22:29.is only the top of the 1990s. issue of a multicultural society did
:22:29. > :22:34.not even get onto the political landscape. There were other fish to
:22:34. > :22:38.fry in the 1970s, like whether the country was governable at all. She
:22:38. > :22:46.had to take on a trade union movement which was Trotskyist or
:22:46. > :22:52.Marxist. The threat to stability was huge. That was the top priority.
:22:52. > :22:55.America, we know she had a good relationship with Ronald Regan and
:22:55. > :22:59.the beginnings of the special relationship between the could --
:22:59. > :23:06.between two countries, what did the Americans think of her? Do Americans
:23:06. > :23:10.care about her legacy? I think Americans do care. Americans, as
:23:10. > :23:14.fine as beacons -- they are concerned, there have only been a
:23:14. > :23:20.couple of Prime Minister since World War II, one was Thatcher and one was
:23:20. > :23:26.Tony Blair. The Americans came to terms with Ronald Reagan in the way
:23:26. > :23:32.that people in this country have not come to terms with Thatcher. That is
:23:32. > :23:35.because the deepness of the divisions were so intense here.
:23:35. > :23:42.using if she was at a different time, she would be viewed
:23:42. > :23:46.differently? She might not have been as successful, in terms of what
:23:46. > :23:54.Janet says. She was doing something at a time when the consequences were
:23:54. > :24:00.huge. Similar things were happening in the United States. The economy is
:24:00. > :24:06.very different. When Detroit was dying in that period, I was working
:24:06. > :24:12.in Texas and I remember going to the airport to take a trip and the auto
:24:12. > :24:17.workers would pour out of the planes, pouring into Texas for the
:24:17. > :24:27.oil boom for work. In this country, you had much less of that, people do
:24:27. > :24:27.
:24:27. > :24:36.not move for jobs. In the 1980s, it was very violent decade and she is
:24:36. > :24:42.responsible for that. You had these things the football, the type of
:24:42. > :24:48.society she created that created all this nastiness. Not all the
:24:48. > :24:53.politicians leave their legacy on one period being named after them.
:24:53. > :25:01.Thatcherism is a thing we all have something to learn from.
:25:01. > :25:06.Interestingly, in my country, the BBC Moscow correspondent twitted
:25:06. > :25:11.that if you go 20 miles outside of Moscow, people still think Thatcher
:25:11. > :25:16.is still Prime Minister. We are running out of time. If you had to
:25:16. > :25:26.say what would her legacy be, quite short, what do you think it is? It
:25:26. > :25:27.
:25:27. > :25:35.is a disaster. Definitely a statesman with not a street legacy.
:25:35. > :25:41.It is strong leaders always make enemies. Social radicalism. She was
:25:41. > :25:47.not a conservative, she was a Tory radical. Thank you all very much for