:00:02. > :00:12.website any time. -- on our website.
:00:12. > :00:17.
:00:17. > :00:21.Welcome to HARDtalk. Really does the death of a long retired
:00:21. > :00:26.politician prompt a genuinely worldwide reaction, but Margaret
:00:26. > :00:29.Thatcher was one of the kind. Britain's first female prime
:00:29. > :00:33.minister transformed her own country and provided the world with
:00:33. > :00:38.a model of market economics and conviction politics which was
:00:38. > :00:43.inspirational to some and repellent to others. My guest played a key
:00:43. > :00:50.role and the creation of Thatcherism, Maurice Saatchi was
:00:50. > :01:00.the advertising guru who helped define and sell what she stood for.
:01:00. > :01:11.
:01:11. > :01:16.How when Dearing is the Thatcher Lord Saatchi, welcome to HARDtalk.
:01:16. > :01:21.Let me begin by quoting back to use some very striking words you wrote
:01:21. > :01:26.very soon after Margaret Thatcher's death was announced. He said,
:01:26. > :01:31.everyone wants to be immortal, Mrs Thatcher is. Why? Because her
:01:31. > :01:36.values are timeless, eternal. Those words are indicative of you immense
:01:36. > :01:42.admiration for her, but you really believe them to be true? Yes, I do.
:01:42. > :01:46.I think if you're to tap on the shoulder anyone in the world and
:01:46. > :01:50.say what did Mrs Thatcher believe in, you would get a straight answer
:01:50. > :01:56.in seconds. They would say something along the lines of free
:01:56. > :02:00.market, small state, low-tax, individuality, independents, self-
:02:00. > :02:05.determination. I think is a remarkable thing about a politician
:02:05. > :02:09.in one country having that kind of impact globally. For that reason, I
:02:09. > :02:17.think it is an accurate description. I love the brevity of what
:02:17. > :02:20.Thatcherism was. Is it true that in 1978, 79, when he began working for
:02:20. > :02:25.the Conservative Party with Margaret Thatcher, is it true that
:02:25. > :02:32.you are asked to put down your version of the Conservative vision
:02:32. > :02:37.on one piece of paper? That pretty much became the basis of the
:02:37. > :02:41.campaign she ran. It is absolutely amazing that you say that because
:02:41. > :02:47.the existence of that piece of paper, which does exist somewhere,
:02:47. > :02:50.we have tried very hard to find it in the Conservative Central Office
:02:50. > :02:55.and the Cabinet Office and at Number Ten Downing Street. We
:02:55. > :03:05.cannot find that piece of paper. Exactly what you describe is what
:03:05. > :03:07.
:03:07. > :03:13.happened. It is very important that a precis is prepared. It is polite.
:03:13. > :03:18.It is a form of good manners. Some people would say that in order to
:03:18. > :03:24.simplify a complex political philosophy into a few words would
:03:24. > :03:28.be an insult to people, it would be treating people as morons. I take
:03:28. > :03:32.the exact opposite view is -- in that people are very busy and they
:03:32. > :03:39.do not have time, and it is therefore important to be able to
:03:39. > :03:44.make a precis. Katrine the idea in a simple form. -- capturing. I can
:03:44. > :03:48.see that is what you're absolutely about. I am fascinated by the idea
:03:49. > :03:53.that you came to this as something of a political agnostic. You
:03:53. > :03:58.weren't the diehard Tory when you first came upon Monday -- Margaret
:03:58. > :04:03.Thatcher and your role in the Conservative Party. Would be --
:04:03. > :04:09.would you be interested in finding out how that happened? I would love
:04:09. > :04:17.to hear it. It would have been in 1978. Mrs Thatcher had set up the
:04:17. > :04:21.Centre for Policy Studies in order to develop her thinking. The object
:04:21. > :04:25.of the exercise as she saw it at the time was that a group of
:04:25. > :04:32.volunteers would work to try and see her elected as prime minister
:04:32. > :04:39.in 1979. That wasn't the view that we talk. Our advice was that the
:04:39. > :04:46.thing to do was to have a firm relationship with one of company,
:04:46. > :04:52.which would stand off for with her. -- stand or fall. After a lot of
:04:52. > :04:55.deliberation, that is what they decided to do. The Saatchi and
:04:55. > :05:02.Saatchi connection with Thatcher, which lived through three election
:05:02. > :05:06.victories. Part of the message, and part of the idea that you continued
:05:06. > :05:14.to peddle about Thatcherism, was that there was something deeply
:05:14. > :05:18.moral about making money, about delivering off to individuals. I
:05:18. > :05:22.think that is an idea which, particularly now after the
:05:22. > :05:29.financial crash, after the malfunctioning of free-market
:05:29. > :05:33.capitalism in such a big way, looks more threadbare. You come straight
:05:33. > :05:38.to probably the most important point of all in terms of political
:05:39. > :05:46.philosophy, which is, what is the reason for Mrs Thatcher's interest
:05:46. > :05:50.in money? Why would that be? believed in the goodness of money.
:05:50. > :05:55.Let's discuss that exactly because I think that is absolutely the
:05:55. > :06:00.fundamental point. In her mind, there would be a clear connection
:06:00. > :06:05.between the most fundamental value of conservatism, which would be
:06:05. > :06:08.freedom, and money. This is most important. The reason she would say
:06:08. > :06:14.that is because she followed the Duke of Professor Galbraith, who
:06:14. > :06:20.memorably said that the greatest restriction on the liberty of the
:06:20. > :06:24.citizen is a complete absence of money. Can I put back to something
:06:24. > :06:33.that he said. He also said, the modern Conservative is engaged in
:06:33. > :06:37.one of the August exercises in moral force of it. That is a search
:06:37. > :06:42.for eight Moral forceful situation for self- a smash. Again, this is a
:06:42. > :06:47.very key point. The reason people have become distressed about free
:06:47. > :06:50.markets lay the is that they can see that it can lead to greed and
:06:50. > :06:54.that the unpleasant consequences in terms of the gap between rich and
:06:54. > :06:58.poor and everything else that we have just seen, so there is
:06:58. > :07:04.absolutely no doubt that you are right. There is a question mark
:07:04. > :07:08.over three cupboard -- free-market capitalism which has never existed
:07:08. > :07:11.before. Mrs Thatcher would understand it completely. She would
:07:11. > :07:16.see the merit of a free market in this way. It was best described in
:07:16. > :07:22.the sense that she would follow a completely. It was best described
:07:22. > :07:29.by a professor who said that the marriage of the free market LEY in
:07:29. > :07:33.competition. Every day, thousands of people cast their votes from
:07:33. > :07:38.hundreds of products and services on offer. From the competition to
:07:38. > :07:44.win their votes, better and better products and services emerge. That
:07:44. > :07:47.is the essence of what she believed in. The concert, as you well know,
:07:47. > :07:51.is that individuals pursuing their own self- interest, the rational
:07:51. > :07:58.self interest, will in the end bring about the best outcome for
:07:58. > :08:05.all. I know you have stayed in touch with her throughout her long
:08:05. > :08:08.life, until very recently. I wonder what you believe she made of the
:08:08. > :08:12.terrible destruction within capitalism over the last few years,
:08:12. > :08:17.when we have seen the banks behave in outrageous fashions, take absurd
:08:17. > :08:20.risks. We had seen everything from sovereign governments to individual
:08:20. > :08:25.financial corporations take on unmanageable levels of debt
:08:25. > :08:31.irresponsibly. And we have seen pay take off in a way that suggests
:08:31. > :08:34.that corporate executives cared much more about short-termism than
:08:34. > :08:38.they did about long-term sustainable growth. What would she
:08:38. > :08:42.have thought about that? Would she think her ideas sowed the seeds of
:08:42. > :08:50.that? I can answer that complete the because I asked her. And she
:08:50. > :09:00.said? I put it this way, do you know, Margaret, what is the share
:09:00. > :09:08.
:09:08. > :09:18.of the top five banks in the UK? She said she didn't. This was only
:09:18. > :09:26.a year ago. I said, it is 80%. She said, with eyes blazing, it's
:09:27. > :09:31.impossible. I said, it isn't, it is a fact. The thing is, when she was
:09:31. > :09:36.saying it is impossible, she wasn't saying it is not true, she was
:09:36. > :09:42.saying it is intolerable. She would have used Government to regulate
:09:42. > :09:46.that problem out of existence? can all see the merit that is in
:09:46. > :09:51.her mind and in the minds of all proponents of free markets. The
:09:51. > :09:55.root of the merit that they see is competition. If competition, in the
:09:55. > :10:00.way that I describe the formula, people competing for votes, will
:10:00. > :10:08.naturally produce a better product or service. If that formula stops
:10:08. > :10:12.working because there is no competition, then the system is and
:10:12. > :10:19.generating what people like Margaret would believe it should do,
:10:19. > :10:29.which is competition to bring better services for all. If that
:10:29. > :10:34.
:10:34. > :10:40.formula has broken down, that is a real problem. Her blazing eyes well
:10:40. > :10:43.and it Importing indicated to me that if she were to observe the
:10:43. > :10:46.scene now, she would completely understand that this is an
:10:46. > :10:50.unacceptable version of her understanding of the merit of free
:10:50. > :10:54.markets. I wonder if she would have taken on the banks and the
:10:54. > :10:59.financial sector in the way she took on the unions. The is
:10:59. > :11:03.impossible to know. If her blazing on the eyes that the discovery that
:11:03. > :11:08.five companies control 80% of the market are anything to go by, which
:11:08. > :11:13.they are, she would see completely clearly that this is totally
:11:13. > :11:18.unacceptable. It will not bring the result that she would like
:11:18. > :11:22.competition to produce, which is the best for everyone. Ian McEwan,
:11:22. > :11:28.the novelist, wrote after her death of her critics had a problem with
:11:28. > :11:32.her because they felt that she exhibited a striking lack of
:11:32. > :11:38.compassion, a lack of hard, and that in the end she had monetise to,
:11:38. > :11:46.to use his phrase, human values. Do you understand why he is coming
:11:46. > :11:53.from? Not particularly. I followed that people do say that. In terms
:11:53. > :11:58.of divisive, here you have a woman who most of the people watching
:11:58. > :12:03.this programme will think of as a heroic figure. Two people around
:12:03. > :12:09.the world and have observed that some people of England do not see
:12:09. > :12:19.her in that way. That is going to puzzle dual-international readers.
:12:19. > :12:23.The only explanation I can give is that anyone who stands for
:12:23. > :12:27.something is going to have people for them and people against them.
:12:27. > :12:32.If you stand for nothing, you have nobody for you and nobody against
:12:32. > :12:36.you. Here is a woman who clearly stood for something. I described it
:12:36. > :12:41.at the beginning. It is clear that some people would not necessarily
:12:41. > :12:49.agree with what she stood for, but that is something she would have to
:12:49. > :12:53.accept, and did. 3.5 million people unemployed during the 1980s. Entire
:12:53. > :12:58.regions economically decimated because of the closure of the mines
:12:58. > :13:04.and the steelworks and a whole raft of industries which had been
:13:04. > :13:11.productive and created tens of thousands of jobs for so long. She
:13:11. > :13:19.didn't seem to care that much about the losers. I can describe what she
:13:19. > :13:24.did care about. In the end, she thought it would bring the best
:13:24. > :13:30.outcome for all. Perhaps for your audience, the best thing to do it
:13:30. > :13:34.is judge her - when they hear comments like that about her, how
:13:34. > :13:40.was your audience to decide? If she truly iconic, heroic figure, as
:13:40. > :13:43.most people in Britain believe? Or are those voices correct? A good
:13:43. > :13:51.suggestion for how they could consider her position is to weigh
:13:51. > :13:55.her up in the way, by the ultimate test, which would be what would
:13:55. > :14:03.happen with a jury in a court of law. After all, people do talk
:14:03. > :14:10.about the jury of public opinion. It is an interesting idea, but I
:14:10. > :14:14.suppose what I am thinking is that nobody really no disputes that
:14:14. > :14:17.Britain in 1979 and through the 80s needed transformation and she
:14:17. > :14:25.delivered transformation, but she did it in a particular way. I have
:14:25. > :14:28.talked about the way their critics see divisiveness. Take Germany for
:14:28. > :14:33.example, which through the 80s and 90s has had to make its own
:14:33. > :14:39.transformation to introduce new competitive processes and modernise
:14:39. > :14:42.industry. It has done it in a very different way, a consensual way, in
:14:42. > :14:46.which government, employers and employees, despite their
:14:46. > :14:51.differences, have tried and succeeded in working together to
:14:51. > :14:58.deliver a new Germany. That never seemed to be an ambition that
:14:58. > :15:03.Thatcher and Thatcherism had. will describe her ambition. Going
:15:03. > :15:09.back to the jury, the jury would be asked by Lord to consider the key
:15:09. > :15:15.question of what is the motive of this person? What was the motive?
:15:15. > :15:22.What was she trying to do? What was in her head as a motive was very
:15:22. > :15:28.simple. She?I ? simple. She simply and straightforwardly.
:15:28. > :15:38.Britain can be great again. That was her driving motive, without any
:15:38. > :15:38.
:15:38. > :17:33.Apology for the loss of subtitles for 114 seconds
:17:33. > :17:38.That is collect. That was an antique collector of motion. Today,
:17:38. > :17:44.with everything we know about the world works today, whether that is
:17:44. > :17:48.quite as timeless Andy Turnell has you insist? The individual in the
:17:48. > :17:53.sense of liberty is. The best example I can give you is the icon
:17:53. > :17:58.of policy that followed from the philosophy are described. It had
:17:58. > :18:05.the individual at the start of that. It was the sale of council houses
:18:05. > :18:09.to tenants. That one policy is the explanation of three Conservative
:18:09. > :18:17.election victories. Where did that policy come from? It did not emerge
:18:17. > :18:20.from nowhere. It was thought that politicians conducted research and
:18:20. > :18:24.find out what people want and make a list of the policies that would
:18:24. > :18:32.suit what people wanted. That is not what happened. That is a
:18:32. > :18:37.Thatcher thought. She said she had to fake in individuals, what can I
:18:37. > :18:42.do to make individuals more powerful, more independent and less
:18:42. > :18:47.dependent. If they own their own home, they will be king of the
:18:47. > :18:52.castle. They probably will mow the lawn, they probably will cut the
:18:52. > :18:56.hedge. They will feel like king of the castle. That is what she wanted
:18:56. > :19:01.people to be. If they could be the king of the castle, they could be
:19:01. > :19:07.their own boss, they can have power. They would not be dependent on any
:19:08. > :19:12.body. Not the boss, not the state, nobody. They would have power
:19:12. > :19:18.themselves. You can see why this would be not only very attractive
:19:18. > :19:22.but complete the time this. I see the connection between that simple
:19:22. > :19:27.set of powerful ideas and the appeal it had to you as an adman to
:19:27. > :19:32.go out and sell it. I just want to bring into a personal point. The
:19:32. > :19:36.word with her closely and you got to know her very well. He remained
:19:36. > :19:43.friends with her. One thing we have not talked about is her gender. A
:19:43. > :19:48.historian wrote, for the ideology and power of the idea that came
:19:48. > :19:52.with that, what made the most lasting about two was the fact she
:19:52. > :19:56.was the first woman Prime Minister in the United States. He worked
:19:56. > :20:01.with her from the beginning when she was a relatively unknown
:20:01. > :20:08.Cabinet minister turned opposition leader who ran for the top job. You
:20:08. > :20:13.tried to change it to a certain extent. Why did you do that? This
:20:13. > :20:20.is one of the great myths of history. Firstly, our role in her
:20:20. > :20:26.election victories is colossally exaggerated. She believed, as she
:20:26. > :20:30.taught me, that general elections are intellectual battles. In which
:20:30. > :20:35.the winner is the one with the best arguments and you put them forward
:20:35. > :20:40.very simply. He has something Henry Kissinger said upon news of her
:20:40. > :20:45.death. She had something very special. She had a clear vision of
:20:45. > :20:49.the future which she laid out before the public. She did not fall
:20:50. > :20:58.into the trap of searching for the middle ground before the public
:20:58. > :21:04.even knew what she stood for. 100% right. I want you to reflect
:21:04. > :21:09.on post-Thatcher politics, post- Thatcher leaders. Is that capacity
:21:09. > :21:14.she had to lay out a vision, knowing it was for many people
:21:14. > :21:19.unpopular but being determined to pursue it, was that something that
:21:19. > :21:25.the 21st politicians do not have? This could be a good point to end
:21:25. > :21:29.on. Henry Kissinger isn't right in the sense that her view was that
:21:29. > :21:34.the centre ground, if it is over here and I'm there, what has
:21:34. > :21:38.happened I will move the centre ground from here to where I stand.
:21:38. > :21:43.They would be her approach. The other approach is at the centre
:21:43. > :21:48.ground has over there, I shall walk over there. To answer the question,
:21:48. > :21:54.where does that leave this generation? Now politics is all
:21:54. > :21:59.about the centre ground, it Miller Band and David Cameron they want to
:21:59. > :22:06.be the most appealing to the centre ground. Everybody now says that. It
:22:06. > :22:11.has become conventional wisdom, the only way -- way to win the election
:22:11. > :22:15.is to appeal to the centre ground. She wanted to bring it over to her.
:22:15. > :22:21.You need a very special kind of mind to be confident you can do
:22:21. > :22:28.that? Were a talking about someone with a very special mind and
:22:28. > :22:33.leadership qualities. That was her opinion. I want to end with this
:22:33. > :22:36.quote, Hugo Young, a respected political commentator who died in
:22:36. > :22:42.2003 rd this about Margaret Thatcher. He greatest virtue was
:22:42. > :22:47.how little she cared if people like to. She needed followers if they
:22:48. > :22:56.could go in her direction, but the ad campaigns whenever about getting
:22:56. > :23:02.her like, respected but not liked? Another excellent quote. He is
:23:02. > :23:10.completely right. I have been accused by someone who wrote books
:23:10. > :23:15.on all the British politicians, he said that we had reduced all
:23:15. > :23:19.British general elections to negative campaigning. Pointing out
:23:19. > :23:24.the defects in the opponent's position rather than putting
:23:24. > :23:28.forward our own position. He said that has transformed in a bad way,
:23:28. > :23:36.all politics and all political campaigns which have now become
:23:36. > :23:42.entirely negative. To his., it is not that she cared what people
:23:42. > :23:45.thought and she was not trying to make yourself like, she would be
:23:45. > :23:48.absolutely certain, going back to what I said about having the best
:23:48. > :23:54.arguments that have somebody over he will present another argument
:23:54. > :24:01.you think is wrong, it is your duty to point out what other defects in