Lord Saatchi - UK Conservative Party Chairman 2003 - 2005 HARDtalk

website any time. -- on our website.

Welcome to HARDtalk. Really does the death of a long retired

politician prompt a genuinely worldwide reaction, but Margaret

Thatcher was one of the kind. Britain's first female prime

minister transformed her own country and provided the world with

a model of market economics and conviction politics which was

inspirational to some and repellent to others. My guest played a key

role and the creation of Thatcherism, Maurice Saatchi was

the advertising guru who helped define and sell what she stood for.

How when Dearing is the Thatcher Lord Saatchi, welcome to HARDtalk.

Let me begin by quoting back to use some very striking words you wrote

very soon after Margaret Thatcher's death was announced. He said,

everyone wants to be immortal, Mrs Thatcher is. Why? Because her

values are timeless, eternal. Those words are indicative of you immense

admiration for her, but you really believe them to be true? Yes, I do.

I think if you're to tap on the shoulder anyone in the world and

say what did Mrs Thatcher believe in, you would get a straight answer

in seconds. They would say something along the lines of free

market, small state, low-tax, individuality, independents, self-

determination. I think is a remarkable thing about a politician

in one country having that kind of impact globally. For that reason, I

think it is an accurate description. I love the brevity of what

Thatcherism was. Is it true that in 1978, 79, when he began working for

the Conservative Party with Margaret Thatcher, is it true that

you are asked to put down your version of the Conservative vision

on one piece of paper? That pretty much became the basis of the

campaign she ran. It is absolutely amazing that you say that because

the existence of that piece of paper, which does exist somewhere,

we have tried very hard to find it in the Conservative Central Office

and the Cabinet Office and at Number Ten Downing Street. We

cannot find that piece of paper. Exactly what you describe is what

happened. It is very important that a precis is prepared. It is polite.

It is a form of good manners. Some people would say that in order to

simplify a complex political philosophy into a few words would

be an insult to people, it would be treating people as morons. I take

the exact opposite view is -- in that people are very busy and they

do not have time, and it is therefore important to be able to

make a precis. Katrine the idea in a simple form. -- capturing. I can

see that is what you're absolutely about. I am fascinated by the idea

that you came to this as something of a political agnostic. You

weren't the diehard Tory when you first came upon Monday -- Margaret

Thatcher and your role in the Conservative Party. Would be --

would you be interested in finding out how that happened? I would love

to hear it. It would have been in 1978. Mrs Thatcher had set up the

Centre for Policy Studies in order to develop her thinking. The object

of the exercise as she saw it at the time was that a group of

volunteers would work to try and see her elected as prime minister

in 1979. That wasn't the view that we talk. Our advice was that the

thing to do was to have a firm relationship with one of company,

which would stand off for with her. -- stand or fall. After a lot of

deliberation, that is what they decided to do. The Saatchi and

Saatchi connection with Thatcher, which lived through three election

victories. Part of the message, and part of the idea that you continued

to peddle about Thatcherism, was that there was something deeply

moral about making money, about delivering off to individuals. I

think that is an idea which, particularly now after the

financial crash, after the malfunctioning of free-market

capitalism in such a big way, looks more threadbare. You come straight

to probably the most important point of all in terms of political

philosophy, which is, what is the reason for Mrs Thatcher's interest

in money? Why would that be? believed in the goodness of money.

Let's discuss that exactly because I think that is absolutely the

fundamental point. In her mind, there would be a clear connection

between the most fundamental value of conservatism, which would be

freedom, and money. This is most important. The reason she would say

that is because she followed the Duke of Professor Galbraith, who

memorably said that the greatest restriction on the liberty of the

citizen is a complete absence of money. Can I put back to something

that he said. He also said, the modern Conservative is engaged in

one of the August exercises in moral force of it. That is a search

for eight Moral forceful situation for self- a smash. Again, this is a

very key point. The reason people have become distressed about free

markets lay the is that they can see that it can lead to greed and

that the unpleasant consequences in terms of the gap between rich and

poor and everything else that we have just seen, so there is

absolutely no doubt that you are right. There is a question mark

over three cupboard -- free-market capitalism which has never existed

before. Mrs Thatcher would understand it completely. She would

see the merit of a free market in this way. It was best described in

the sense that she would follow a completely. It was best described

by a professor who said that the marriage of the free market LEY in

competition. Every day, thousands of people cast their votes from

hundreds of products and services on offer. From the competition to

win their votes, better and better products and services emerge. That

is the essence of what she believed in. The concert, as you well know,

is that individuals pursuing their own self- interest, the rational

self interest, will in the end bring about the best outcome for

all. I know you have stayed in touch with her throughout her long

life, until very recently. I wonder what you believe she made of the

terrible destruction within capitalism over the last few years,

when we have seen the banks behave in outrageous fashions, take absurd

risks. We had seen everything from sovereign governments to individual

financial corporations take on unmanageable levels of debt

irresponsibly. And we have seen pay take off in a way that suggests

that corporate executives cared much more about short-termism than

they did about long-term sustainable growth. What would she

have thought about that? Would she think her ideas sowed the seeds of

that? I can answer that complete the because I asked her. And she

said? I put it this way, do you know, Margaret, what is the share

of the top five banks in the UK? She said she didn't. This was only

a year ago. I said, it is 80%. She said, with eyes blazing, it's

impossible. I said, it isn't, it is a fact. The thing is, when she was

saying it is impossible, she wasn't saying it is not true, she was

saying it is intolerable. She would have used Government to regulate

that problem out of existence? can all see the merit that is in

her mind and in the minds of all proponents of free markets. The

root of the merit that they see is competition. If competition, in the

way that I describe the formula, people competing for votes, will

naturally produce a better product or service. If that formula stops

working because there is no competition, then the system is and

generating what people like Margaret would believe it should do,

which is competition to bring better services for all. If that

formula has broken down, that is a real problem. Her blazing eyes well

and it Importing indicated to me that if she were to observe the

scene now, she would completely understand that this is an

unacceptable version of her understanding of the merit of free

markets. I wonder if she would have taken on the banks and the

financial sector in the way she took on the unions. The is

impossible to know. If her blazing on the eyes that the discovery that

five companies control 80% of the market are anything to go by, which

they are, she would see completely clearly that this is totally

unacceptable. It will not bring the result that she would like

competition to produce, which is the best for everyone. Ian McEwan,

the novelist, wrote after her death of her critics had a problem with

her because they felt that she exhibited a striking lack of

compassion, a lack of hard, and that in the end she had monetise to,

to use his phrase, human values. Do you understand why he is coming

from? Not particularly. I followed that people do say that. In terms

of divisive, here you have a woman who most of the people watching

this programme will think of as a heroic figure. Two people around

the world and have observed that some people of England do not see

her in that way. That is going to puzzle dual-international readers.

The only explanation I can give is that anyone who stands for

something is going to have people for them and people against them.

If you stand for nothing, you have nobody for you and nobody against

you. Here is a woman who clearly stood for something. I described it

at the beginning. It is clear that some people would not necessarily

agree with what she stood for, but that is something she would have to

accept, and did. 3.5 million people unemployed during the 1980s. Entire

regions economically decimated because of the closure of the mines

and the steelworks and a whole raft of industries which had been

productive and created tens of thousands of jobs for so long. She

didn't seem to care that much about the losers. I can describe what she

did care about. In the end, she thought it would bring the best

outcome for all. Perhaps for your audience, the best thing to do it

is judge her - when they hear comments like that about her, how

was your audience to decide? If she truly iconic, heroic figure, as

most people in Britain believe? Or are those voices correct? A good

suggestion for how they could consider her position is to weigh

her up in the way, by the ultimate test, which would be what would

happen with a jury in a court of law. After all, people do talk

about the jury of public opinion. It is an interesting idea, but I

suppose what I am thinking is that nobody really no disputes that

Britain in 1979 and through the 80s needed transformation and she

delivered transformation, but she did it in a particular way. I have

talked about the way their critics see divisiveness. Take Germany for

example, which through the 80s and 90s has had to make its own

transformation to introduce new competitive processes and modernise

industry. It has done it in a very different way, a consensual way, in

which government, employers and employees, despite their

differences, have tried and succeeded in working together to

deliver a new Germany. That never seemed to be an ambition that

Thatcher and Thatcherism had. will describe her ambition. Going

back to the jury, the jury would be asked by Lord to consider the key

question of what is the motive of this person? What was the motive?

What was she trying to do? What was in her head as a motive was very

simple. She?I ? simple. She simply and straightforwardly.

Britain can be great again. That was her driving motive, without any

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 114 seconds

That is collect. That was an antique collector of motion. Today,

with everything we know about the world works today, whether that is

quite as timeless Andy Turnell has you insist? The individual in the

sense of liberty is. The best example I can give you is the icon

of policy that followed from the philosophy are described. It had

the individual at the start of that. It was the sale of council houses

to tenants. That one policy is the explanation of three Conservative

election victories. Where did that policy come from? It did not emerge

from nowhere. It was thought that politicians conducted research and

find out what people want and make a list of the policies that would

suit what people wanted. That is not what happened. That is a

Thatcher thought. She said she had to fake in individuals, what can I

do to make individuals more powerful, more independent and less

dependent. If they own their own home, they will be king of the

castle. They probably will mow the lawn, they probably will cut the

hedge. They will feel like king of the castle. That is what she wanted

people to be. If they could be the king of the castle, they could be

their own boss, they can have power. They would not be dependent on any

body. Not the boss, not the state, nobody. They would have power

themselves. You can see why this would be not only very attractive

but complete the time this. I see the connection between that simple

set of powerful ideas and the appeal it had to you as an adman to

go out and sell it. I just want to bring into a personal point. The

word with her closely and you got to know her very well. He remained

friends with her. One thing we have not talked about is her gender. A

historian wrote, for the ideology and power of the idea that came

with that, what made the most lasting about two was the fact she

was the first woman Prime Minister in the United States. He worked

with her from the beginning when she was a relatively unknown

Cabinet minister turned opposition leader who ran for the top job. You

tried to change it to a certain extent. Why did you do that? This

is one of the great myths of history. Firstly, our role in her

election victories is colossally exaggerated. She believed, as she

taught me, that general elections are intellectual battles. In which

the winner is the one with the best arguments and you put them forward

very simply. He has something Henry Kissinger said upon news of her

death. She had something very special. She had a clear vision of

the future which she laid out before the public. She did not fall

into the trap of searching for the middle ground before the public

even knew what she stood for. 100% right. I want you to reflect

on post-Thatcher politics, post- Thatcher leaders. Is that capacity

she had to lay out a vision, knowing it was for many people

unpopular but being determined to pursue it, was that something that

the 21st politicians do not have? This could be a good point to end

on. Henry Kissinger isn't right in the sense that her view was that

the centre ground, if it is over here and I'm there, what has

happened I will move the centre ground from here to where I stand.

They would be her approach. The other approach is at the centre

ground has over there, I shall walk over there. To answer the question,

where does that leave this generation? Now politics is all

about the centre ground, it Miller Band and David Cameron they want to

be the most appealing to the centre ground. Everybody now says that. It

has become conventional wisdom, the only way -- way to win the election

is to appeal to the centre ground. She wanted to bring it over to her.

You need a very special kind of mind to be confident you can do

that? Were a talking about someone with a very special mind and

leadership qualities. That was her opinion. I want to end with this

quote, Hugo Young, a respected political commentator who died in

2003 rd this about Margaret Thatcher. He greatest virtue was

how little she cared if people like to. She needed followers if they

could go in her direction, but the ad campaigns whenever about getting

her like, respected but not liked? Another excellent quote. He is

completely right. I have been accused by someone who wrote books

on all the British politicians, he said that we had reduced all

British general elections to negative campaigning. Pointing out

the defects in the opponent's position rather than putting

forward our own position. He said that has transformed in a bad way,

all politics and all political campaigns which have now become

entirely negative. To his., it is not that she cared what people

thought and she was not trying to make yourself like, she would be

absolutely certain, going back to what I said about having the best

arguments that have somebody over he will present another argument

you think is wrong, it is your duty to point out what other defects in