Speeches, etc.

Margaret Thatcher

TV Interview for TV-AM

Document type: Speeches, interviews, etc.
Venue: Camden Lock, North London
Source: Thatcher Archive: TV-AM transcript
Journalist: David Frost, TV-AM
Editorial comments: 0900-0930.
Importance ranking: Major
Word count: 4881
Themes: Executive, Executive (appointments), Conservatism, Defence (general), Education, Private education, General Elections, Health policy, Private health care, Housing, Labour Party & socialism, Leadership, Religion & morality, Social security & welfare, Famous statements by MT (discussions of)

David Frost

Welcome back, and now we complete our conversations with the leaders by talking with the Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Margaret Thatcher. Good morning Prime Minister.

Right Honourable Margaret Thatcher

Good morning.

DF

Appropriately enough for a Sunday morning, in the last couple of days in this campaign the subject of Christianity has been much quoted and so on, and that you were quoted as saying that the right to choose is the essence of Christianity, and some clerics have responded, ‘No, the essence of Christianity is love, love the Lord thy God—this is the great Commandment, and to love thy neighbour as thyself’. Is there a conflict between those two?

MT

Look, let me make it clear, there are Christians in all parties, and I don't wish to claim any special thing for us. What I do resent is if it's ever suggested that there aren't Christians in our party, and to me the essence of Christianity is not compulsion, but what you do personally, and therefore I do not quarrel with that the essence of Christianity is love thy neighbour as thyself. You don't always love yourself.

DF

And in this particular campaign, in terms of—no you don't always love yourself indeed. But the … (interrupted).

MT

But you see, you know, if you do things that you really are not terribly proud of, then you don't love yourself. But I don't really think there's any quarrel between us, and I do not lay claim to any particular doctrine of Christianity for ourselves, but there are Christians in all parties. That we fully accept and we each have our own interpretation.

DF

In terms then—obviously that's absolutely true, there are Christians in all parties, and no-one has a monopoly in that area at all—in terms of this thing, the word that keeps coming up about [end p1] caring, if we take this, love thy neighbour as thyself, the tale of the, the parable, we should say, of the Good Samaritan, there is a picture, you would perhaps say a caricature, but a picture abroad in the land, that if you take the man who went down from Jerusalem to Jericho and fell among thieves that, that the instinctive reaction of the Conservatives would be to tell him to join a Neighbourhood Watch Committee or to open a small business. That the Alliance would want to talk to him about proportional representation, and some of them would want to cross the road, and some of them wouldn't. But that the first people to cross the road would be the Labour Party because they are, in a sense, the most Samaritan of the parties. Do you accept that?

MT

No, look. No, and I think it's quite absurd to try to claim one, any of these parables for oneself, the Good Samaritan was a man of substance, saw someone who needed help and therefore gave of what he had. Someone else might not have been a man of substance, that might have walked across the road and just given all the kindness and loving care and attention. But both of them would have given what they got. There's a widow's mite, as well as the gift from the much more wealthy man. The important thing is to give what you've got, but equally the important thing is you can't compel people, Christianity isn't about compulsion, it is about doing things yourself.

DF

But in terms of the people, the poor that, some people say the 15 per cent, whatever the figure is, the poor, the homeless, the unemployed, those without as much of a freedom of choice in this country. Why should they vote Conservative?

MT

Because we have been the Party and Government, if I might put it this way, of good, sound, honest housekeeping in the nation's affairs. We've also been the party that's recognised that people have enormous talents and abilities, and have cut many, much red tape and controls, which has released those talents and abilities. The combination of the two, the Government good housekeeping and the talents and abilities of the people creating more wealth, has meant, yes, we have had more money to spend on the social [end p2] services, and we have spent it. But you see it comes back to what you're saying, you can't compel people to use the best of their talents and abilities, you can only give them incentives to do it. That we have done, and we have never made reckless promises, we don't just spend as if there were no tomorrow because it's only other people's money we have to spend. Good housekeeping on the part of Government, recognising the talents and abilities of people, so cutting the controls and giving them incentives, has in fact produced more for almost everyone, a higher standard of living for those in work, that because they've created the wealth there has been more, and there has been enormously increased expenditure on the social services for that reason.

DF

But at the moment the perception, obviously it is true that the rich have got richer, all those figures about the top ten per cent, and that, in relation to the bottom ten per cent, the poorer, these benefits that you're talking about haven't got through to them yet. But when you made the statement … (interrupted).

MT

But that's not quite true Mr Frost, that is not quite true. You don't want me to give a lot of reasons, (unclear) I don't, but you know when I'm challenged that the benefits have not got through, I just must point out that when I was given the enormous privileges of going into office in Number 10, the British taxpayer could afford to spend £17 billion—forget the noughts, just remember the £17 billion a year on social security—that includes pensions, sickness benefit, disabled benefit, particularly help for the disabled. Yes, and unemployment, but that does not take the lion's share. Now, this year, it's £46 billion. (interrupted).

DF

Oh, no … (interrupted).

MT

And the heating additions and so on, and so it has got through.

DF

No, and you're fair, that's fair to quote those statistics, and as you say we mustn't swap them back, but I was thinking of that one that said when you came to power the richest ten per cent [end p3] had six-and-a-half times as much disposable income as the poorest ten per cent, and now it's eight times, but we could go backwards and forwards with those statistics.

Come to that quote Prime Minister, all these private polls in the background by the various Sunday papers, in-depth polls, say that your great vulnerability is your attitude, or your perceived attitude, to the Health Service. And when you said, the other day, very frankly, ‘I can go on the day I want, at the time I want, with the doctor I want’, in terms of private health and not jumping the queue and so on, that was nevertheless an admission, wasn't it, that after eight years private medicine is more efficient, more convenient than the Health Service, that the Health Service is essentially a second class service compared to what you chose now.

MT

No, not necessarily, because, just supposing there was a great accident, we would all go straight to the Health Service, all go straight, immediately, after Brighton everyone went to the Health Service. It is absolutely fantastic on dealing with acute emergencies, and they're dealt with immediately, and we would all be there. I was lucky at Brighton, some of my friends weren't. I would have been there just with anyone else, had we all had some of those terrible diseases, which in a way we all fear, it means the same to all of us, we could none of us afford the eternal problem that we might have an illness that couldn't be cured, we would all be there, and the Health Service too would be there.

Yes, there is difficulty with waiting lists, we have got them down a little bit, but the waiting lists, as soon as you get a new treatment you get a new waiting list. Now I'm very lucky, I only have very, very tiny, minor things. And I think that it's best that I don't take up a bed in the Health Service for that, and there are five million other people who think the same with me. But can I just go on. You see what you are saying is something utterly fundamental, that no-one should be able to choose how they spend their money, if it involves spending it on health. But you're saying something else, that alone among [end p4] professions, occupations, a doctor or a nurse should never to be able (sic) to set up on their own. You can set up on your own if you're a plumber, you can set up on your own if you're a musician, you can set up on your own if you're an engineer, you set up on your own if you're an accountant, but on your definition, as a doctor you could never say, ‘I will set up on my own’.

DF

I haven't got round to a definition yet. I was merely saying that the very fact that you choose something that's more efficient means that that which you reject at that time must be less efficient … (interrupted).

MT

No, I choose something which happens to suit me at that time (unclear, talk together). Suits me at that time. But the essence is that under Conservative administration, because of the good housekeeping, yes, because we've encouraged people of talent and ability, and if they do well for Britain why shouldn't they also do well for themselves? There has been more money. And there are therefore more nurses in the Health Service, there are more doctors in the Health Service, there are new and better hospitals, there are more patients being treated, there are a million cases a week.

DF

But I mean when it comes down, as you've quoted a couple of times in the last couple of days, you choose to spend your money, as others, some others do, up to ten per cent of the population on … (interrupted).

MT

Indeed, yes … (interrupted).

DF

… and then you went on to say, Prime Minister, that other people may choose to spend it on alcohol and cigarettes and gambling, a slightly biased list against them, but I mean they might choose … (unclear) what do you say to those people, when you're reassuring people and you're saying, ‘I choose to spend it this way, not on holidays or alcohol or beer, or cigarettes’ or whatever, what about those people who say, ‘Well, that's all very well I don't have that choice at all, I mean I can scarcely afford to switch on the gas in the morning, and so I haven't chosen alcohol and all these dissolute pastimes, I just [end p5] don't have the money at all to choose’. What do you say to them?

MT

Well, I say, quite simply, that the Health Service has more resources, more doctors, more nurses, more hospitals, more equipment, more x-ray theatres, has carried out far more hip operations, far more cataract operations, those are the two long waiting lists, that open heart surgery is now the norm, where it used to be the exception, all of those things. You can now, as you saw the other day, operate on newly-born babies with congenital heart disease. These, yes, it is an increased waiting list, yes it did mean something, some child who had not got an acute problem did have to wait the other day. But yes, what I say to those people is that under this Government there are more facilities, there are more facilities for operations, than there ever were before.

DF

But would you say though, that given your great belief in privatisation and personal responsibility and so on, that in the long-term it would be a good thing if we moved to a system like what occurs in France, Germany, the United States, where we have private health insurance and private hospitals, rather than a National Health Service?

MT

No, I'm not suggesting that in any way.

DF

But why not then, because of your principles?

MT

Because the National Health Service is, look, Mr Frost, you use the private, you use the private Health Service as well, you exercise your freedom of choice.

DF

I don't know whether I should have that freedom of choice about health however.

MT

Five million, five million. Well, you mean you would stop any doctor and nurse from starting up on their own?

DF

I feel guilty about the fact that private health lessens the standard of the National Health Service. [end p6]

MT

No, it does not.

DF

Drains resources from it.

MT

No, I'm very sorry.

DF

And I don't know that we should have that right.

MT

May I argue that with you?

DF

We have that right, but I don't think we should.

MT

I do not think it drains resources from the National Health Service. I think you'd find that we would not have many of the very, very best doctors here available also for the Health Service, as well as for private practice, I think you'd find that we might lose quite a number of them. You, you know trade unions negotiate with employers for their people to have private health, five million of them. There are trade union hospitals supported by them.

DF

But I just think that you and I, and your Cabinet colleagues and so on, would work harder to improve the State system of health and the State system of education if our children went to it.

MT

You mean, … (interrupted).

DF

And we, we don't, you or I, have the ability to escape from that … (interrupted),

MT

Well, let me say … (interrupted).

DF

…it's almost considered a reward of the Thatcherite Britain to be able to escape from the State system. If we were all part of that State system, the PTA in Chelsea or Finchley would be much better and the State system would be better, and the standard of life throughout the country would be better.

MT

You're talking about compulsion.

DF

No, I'm not talking about compulsion.

MT

Yes, but I'm sorry … (interrupted). [end p7]

DF

I'm talking about certain inalienable rights.

MT

I'm sorry, no, I'm sorry, you're talking about compulsion, that people shall not be allowed to do certain things, that doctors should never be allowed to start up on their own, or nurses. They run that system in the Soviet Union. It does not result in a better Health Service, it does not result in a better standard of care. Look, the best standard of care the Health Service has ever known has happened under this Government. The best pay the nurses have ever had has happened under this Government, the best pay for doctors that they've ever had has happened under this Government, the best hospitals has happened under this Government because we do have an incentive system and it is delivering better care, I have no … (interrupted).

DF

But I just think health is different though … (interrupted).

MT

… no, I … (interrupted).

DF

… you see, in the sense that, I think health is different in the sense, you've admitted it because you just said you wouldn't privatise the Health Service, just you want to privatise everything else. So you're admitting health's different, I'm saying health is an inalienable right, and it's different, and you've admitted it's different.

MT

That's right, and I am saying that there are far more patients who are treated because of the system we have run. Good housekeeping and incentives has in fact produced far more wealth and far more money, and I gave you the figures for social security, the day we went into Number 10 Downing Street, the expenditure on the Health Service, under Labour, was £8 billion a year.

DF

And now it's £21.

MT

And not it's £21.

DF

I heard you say that (unclear) … [end p8]

MT

Yes, yes, I know you heard it, and you can't ignore it, because we have done … (interrupted).

DF

No, it's a perfectly fair point to make … (interrupted).

MT

… the … for the Health Service (both talk together).

DF

…but then if you take the, we could back with statistics, education versus defence, the spending on education proportionally versus defence has dropped over the eight years. We could swap statistics, but let's take a break and then carry on.

MT

Yes, but one, no, well, you mustn't make accusations like that.

DF

No, but I was swapping it one for one, … (interrupted).

MT

One moment … (interrupted).

DF

… one statistic for one statistic.

MT

No, you're not swapping it one for one. There are a million fewer pupils in schools now, because that's just the way the birth rate went, but in fact the amount spent per pupil over and above inflation, whether in the primary school, whether in a secondary school, whether in sixth form college, is up over and above inflation, as a matter of fact it's up 17 per cent, but it comes back, Mr Frost, to the same thing, yes I do believe in a free society, yes I do believe in choice, yes I do believe in incentive, yes I do believe in people being able to choose, and that system, together with Government's good housekeeping, Government and people together have been able to produce more resources for the Health Service, more resources for pensions and social security, and actually more resources for pupil and more resources for universities and polytechnics than any other.

DF

But don't you think people watching us though would think … (interrupted). [end p9]

MT

That's the way I think you should judge … (interrupted) … (talk together).

DF

… would think that if only more of the Tory Cabinet used the National Health Service, more of them used, more of them used State schools they'd be better guardians than being, in a sense—more concerned guardians—than being, in a sense, absentee landlords?

MT

Are you suggesting that Mr and Mrs Tebbit didn't? Are you suggesting that John Wakeham didn't?

DF

I didn't, no, I wasn't talking about Brighton.

MT

Are you suggesting that Mrs Berry (phonetic) didn't?

DF

I wasn't talking about all of them, I was merely saying that in general the use for instance in State education … (interrupted).

MT

… are you suggesting that the, are you suggesting that the Sir Michael HaversAttorney General, when he needed open heart surgery, did not do it? Yes.

DF

But in the, take State education as an example then, leaving aside the tragic subject of Brighton. The, take State education. If more Cabinet Ministers sent their children to State schools, wouldn't people think they would be more concerned to maintain the standards than if they had no vested interest in the care of their children in those schools?

MT

No, I would not necessarily accept that. Because you have a different system from the State system it does show what standards of excellence can be achieved. That in fact reacts back onto the State system, because you have got, yes you do see another system, but let me take you up on that very point. We used to have grammar schools, more than we have now, right in the State system. I wouldn't be here unless I'd attended one. It was the socialist doctrine to try to get rid of them because they were different. Now, I would have much preferred to tackle it the other way. Yes, let us bring up the secondary modern schools in what they did to [end p10] the standard of the grammar schools. But the socialist system results in levelling-down. Our system results in levelling up. Yes, I did go to an independent grammar school the other day, one that the parents started and it was a Church of England foundation, and it is doing fantastic work, but it is doing things that parents want, it is teaching the children all the true educational subjects, it's teaching them to be kind, courteous and thoughtful to one another. Now, therefore, yes, other people are comparing the State system with it, and there's no earthly reason why every State school should not do that. And the fact that another school is doing it means that it is possible.

DF

Prime Minister, we've got to take a break there, we'll come rushing back as fast as we can.

(Break)

DF

Welcome back, talking with the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, when, you've been asked quite a lot of times, about when you made the remark about on, and on and on, and there was a lot of criticism of this rather, sort of relentless approach seeming going on and on, and on, the steamroller thing, but there's another side, a more human side to this too, isn't it, because it's only eighteen months ago that your famous quote, when you murmured, ‘At six o'clock tonight, I may no longer be Prime Minister’ in the midst of the Westland affair on January the 27th, I think. Was that the lowest moment of the last four years?

MT

No, one is always very conscious that you're there, your power comes from the ballot box always, that is the only power you have, the power from the ballot box. At every election you submit yourself to the judgment of your people, on your … (interrupted).

DF

But that, January 27th though, why did you say that?

MT

And then, don't forget I have, also have another submission to make to the judgment of my Party. And that is every single year. I'm the first leader to whom that's happened, because the [end p11] system was changed just before I took office. I think it gives me strength. But I'm only here by a double ballot box really. And I'm very much aware of it, but you know, the on and on, I can tell you what usually happens and I knew the line of questioning, as one sometimes does the line of questioning of interviewers. Because the trap is that if you don't say, ‘Yes, you're prepared to go on,’ they'll say, ‘Ah, then she's going to give up during this election’ and they'll then go and say, ‘Ah, you don't know who will be next’. Of course, in a way you'll never know what will happen, but this time we take this election and then we see what happens. Yes, I would like to carry on, it is not wholly in my judgment. Just as I was given an opportunity, so other people will expect an opportunity, but I have the double judgment now at the election and the annual judgment of my Party.

DF

But why on that date, though, January 27th, were you so down that you said, ‘I may not be Prime Minister by six o'clock tonight’ after the Westland debate?

MT

Oh, you suddenly come out of these things. You suddenly come out with these things. I would not necessarily take them as if they had any very great, deep significance.

DF

Do you think in terms of, you've talked a lot about the proud parts of your record. Do you think that the selective leaking of the Law Officer's letter was the major black mark against the last four years?

MT

No, I, no the whole of the Westland affair was so small, I was amazed that it was blown up. The Westland affair was about a private company's right to determine its own future. Look at the things that were going on at the same time in defence; the whole of the AWACs matter, not involved with £35 million, but involved with something between £600 million to a billion. No, it was, it was something which happened, it was very small, and I was amazed it was blown up. But it was, and you have to take life as it comes. And as it happened things went as we decided they should, and it was a matter for that company to decide it's own future, and when it [end p12] comes to giving orders to that company you simply cannot give orders on what they want to produce, you've got to give orders, as we have done recently, on what your armed forces want, and so it came out as we expected.

DF

But do you regret the leaking of that letter? Was that a black mark against the Government?

MT

I did, I did say it, that I regretted the leaking of that letter, I said so at the time.

DF

Did, and you mentioned in your letter to Mr Brittan, about, ‘I hope that it would not be long before you return to high office to continue your ministerial career’. Is that a priority to you, that pledge, in the next election?

MT

One is always very sad when comparatively small things, and the Westland was a comparatively small thing, it's one of those things which just blow up. Yes, and there are certain personality problems, one's always very sad about that. Always very sad when you lose two very able people. But you know life is like that, and it's just one of the things you have to accept and then you carry on. [Michael Heseltine and Leon Brittan] They were both very able people, but I can't make my Cabinet on a Sunday morning with you.

DF

I understand that.

MT

You wouldn't expect me to.

DF

But I think Mr Brittan might be a bit disappointed if he's watching now.

MT

Do you know, I have been in politics a very long time, I have known great joys, and great disappointments and if you have the one, then there are times when you have to accept the other.

DF

So that's what he should do at this point?

MT

No, no, no. We're all in politics, I'm not saying anything against any particular person. I know too much about life's disappointments as well as about its joys. [end p13]

DF

If we're to believe the polls that put you ahead by a very healthy margin this morning, there's one other thing that comes out of those same polls, which is that, though you seem to be on course, although the other parties would dispute it, for the third term, one thing that hasn't happened, which you have spoken often about, is the death of socialism. I mean socialism has resurged somewhat, up three-and-a-half per cent since the beginning of the campaign, the Alliance down three-and-a-half per cent, so a Labour Party, which you have said is very, very influenced by the left, therefore socialist, has resurged somewhat. So this is not the death, it's a rather muted resurgence of socialism.

MT

No, it is not the resurgence of socialism, because they have tried to conceal, by every manner and every trick possible, the extent of the left-wing within their own party, the left-wing has been kept very quiet, the manifesto is an iceberg manifesto, we've been trying to reveal what goes on underneath. No, it is my fundamental belief that the things we've been trying to do: extending home ownership, far more widely than ever before, because we passionately believe in it, it's the centre of the home, it's the centre of the family, giving people the right, out of their own earnings, to build up their own independence, yes to own shares, and of course, the policy we've pursued of having everyone working in business, being an owner as well as an earner, has brought a new unity.

DF

But if the Labour vote goes up and the seats go up that's not the death of socialism, that's a mini-rebirth, isn't it?

MT

No, I don't think I've quite made myself clear. I don't think yet we've got across to people the extent, the left-wing extent of that manifesto. It's that which is being concealed. I, it was we who gave back the trade unions to their members by democratic rights. I don't think they want to go back to the diktat of the trade union bosses. It's we who've given the share, the people who worked in British Telecom, British Gas, and some of the people who used to work in British Gas, the pensioners, the right to be owners, they don't want that equity stake taken away from them [end p14] to be replaced by a worthless bit of paper. All right it may have a certain figure upon it, it would be a capital loss, a figure upon it, signed by a socialist Chancellor of the Exchequer, who would then inflate the whole economy and devalue that. They don't want that either. Some of these things haven't got across, and it's our job still to get them across. It's been the whole belief of Toryism during all the time, and far longer than I've been there, to take what used to be the privileges of the few and spread them ever more widely. When we came in in 1951 again there were only thirty people out of every hundred who owned their home. We didn't say then, ‘Because everyone can't have it, no-one should have it’, and the home is more fundamental than anything. We said, ‘Right, let's extend it’, and so it's now 65 out of every 100. It's my dream that we might soon get it up to 75 out of every 100. We've said people want to build out of their own effort. Don't take it all away from tax, let them build their own security. That's what we are doing, giving them extra independence, that's the essence of Toryism.

DF

Prime Minister, thank you very much for being with us for this conversation this morning. Thank you.