Joe Steeples, Woman
What we would like to deal with today is education and young people and the starting-off point, I would like to hear about your own experience at school and perhaps learn what you retain most - the key lesson that you were able to pick up at school that you have carried through life.
Prime Minister
Not an easy question when you say the “key lesson”, because the key lessons you also pick up from your family as well as your school and, indeed, you have remember that long before you go to school - in our days at five, because there were not such things as nursery schools - the main patterns have been laid down by the lessons which you absorb from your family and which you are taught in your early days and I always think it is not possible to expect teachers to do what a family can and should do, although one is very much aware that where children do not get a very good start in life, [end p1] that the responsibility, the burden, the duties, on the teacher, are particularly heavy, but it is not fair to expect them always to be able to make up for things which the family have not done.
I was very lucky in my schools.
I went to a small primary school. We had to walk a mile to get to it and we walked a mile back to lunch, a mile back in the afternoon and a mile back again, and it is quite good to have exercise in going to and from school.
In every school - both the primary and the secondary - I had what one would desire most of all for people in education, marvellous headteachers. More than anything else, the head teacher sets the tone of a school, sets the standards. I notice it when I go around and when you find a school that is in tremendous demand, it is because there is a marvellous head teacher and a marvellous head teacher attracts wonderful staff and they all work together.
Whether it was in our primary school or our secondary school, we were always expected to remember that we were part of a school and that people would judge the school by us and in those days - and I think in many schools still now - the standards were very clear and the standards were expected to be maintained, whether they were of appearance, of courtesy, of general behaviour; and also, you went to school to learn. It was not that when you were ready to [end p2] learn you would absorb it; you went to school to learn, you went to school to be taught.
People say sometimes that we were just taught by rote - we were not, but we were taught, knowing that before you can think you have got to have some knowledge and facts to think with. So yes, teaching facts, teaching methods, teaching memory, was part of it.
Joe Steeples, Woman
Did it come easy to you or did you have to work very hard?
Prime Minister
I do not think learning comes easily to everyone over every subject. There are some things you do have to work hard at. Some people have to work hard at mathematics and mathematics can be difficult to teach, and when it is well taught it is not so difficult to learn.
You will always have to work quite hard at some of your facts, because you must learn the facts, and the idea that some people could do it just with no work at all, I think, is something of a fallacy. I think some people learn more quickly than others.
I think it is important that you are taught how to learn; how to read a chapter in a book, in perhaps a scientific book; how to sit and think: “Now, what have I learned from that? What is the message in that? What are the main things in that?” and [end p3] somehow find a way to put it in your mind, but throughout I had marvellous head-teachers - Miss Glenn at my primary school and Miss Williams at our secondary school - and Miss Williams started the school and therefore she was particularly concerned that her school did set great standards, and she certainly did.
I would just like to say this:
I have been back to my school since. It is still a marvellous school with a wonderful head-teacher and a marvellous staff. The pupils there have far more facilities, far more equipment of every kind, whether it is science, whether it is in what we used to call “domestic science”. It may be a bit disjointed, but let me say something about that:
We were taught clear subjects, for which I have always been grateful. There were no such thing as integrated studies, because you never quite knew what people learned then. We were taught maths. We were taught English language, English literature. We were taught history. We were taught geography. We were taught chemistry. We were taught art. We were taught French. And, of course, Scripture, a compulsory subject - that is religious education was compulsory and our headmistress taught us Scripture, but she was very advanced.
Even when we went into the Sixth Form, even if you went on the Science side, everyone had to keep learning some English, [end p4] whether it was language or literature or whether how to express yourself, because even if you went into Science, the important thing was you knew how to write a report; the important thing was you knew how to express yourself and where she was extremely advanced, everyone - but everyone - for the first four years in secondary school took what we called “domestic science”. That was: we learned needlework; we learned how to patch things, how to mend them, how to make them; how to embroider. We learned laundry. In those days, we had flat irons and you learned how to test the heat of them. You learned to put on it just enough wax to cover a sixpence; and then, we learned cookery and how to budget.
I have been most immensely grateful for this the most thorough, marvellous education I could possibly have had by wonderful teachers and teachers who in our town had great prestige because of the excellence of the teaching they did, because they always themselves believed in setting an example and in setting standards. You know, they were always beautifully turned out; they were always methodical and you understood that if ever you are in a community - and a school is a community - that you have to live by rules. Of course, some will break the rules, but you knew what the rules were.
That is the kind of education that I would really almost wish for everyone to have. [end p5]
The other thing is the schools were not large. We had five classes in the primary school, but there was also a special class and there would have been between thirty and forty in a class - say thirty to thirty-five in a class - but that was quite a big primary school, but nothing like as big. &dubellip;
And in our secondary school, we had about 360. Our headmistress, Miss Williams and then Miss Gillies, knew the name of every girl, knew every girl. Every teacher knew the name of every girl and therefore we felt that we were a part of something.
When you go to an enormously large school, I think it is very much more difficult to feel a pull towards the school.
Joe Steeples, Woman
How involved were your parents?
Prime Minister
Alfred RobertsMy father was a governor of our school and later he became chairman of the governors, because he was passionately interested in education.
My father left school at thirteen. He had to. There were not the opportunities in those days that came to my generation, let alone much more modern generations, but he was a highly intelligent [end p6] person and one of the most self-educated - best-educated by self-educated people - I have ever met.
We read books. We read the same books as he did when we were in our teens. He discussed them with us. He believed in talking about what was happening in the world. It was the time of the rise of Hitler. It was the time of unemployment. He was a good speaker. He was on our local council because of his fantastic self-education. He was chairman of our finance committee and sometimes when later I would hear my fellow politicians saying: “Oh people in the country will not understand that!”, I would say: “Don't you underestimate them!” They have a fundamental under-standing of the big things that matter in politics and also I could have discussed things with my father in as knowledgeable a way as I could discuss them in a group of MPs, because if there was a new book or a biography, if there was a new book about current events, we got it out of the library and we read it and we talked about it.
And at school also we had after-school activities - oh, very much a part of our life. Also physical education. That is also part of a good rounded education - and games. But after-school activities, very much a part of our life. There would be a debating society, for example, and one belonged to it. We would practise games after school. School ended at twenty-to-four and after-school activities usually went on until about half-past four [end p7] with all the various voluntary classes, and I took part in public speaking and, again, it was part of our traditional teaching actually in school.
In English classes, there were times when there were a whole lot of subjects, each put on one form or put into a hat, and you would have to pick out a subject from that hat and get up before the class and be told to speak immediately for two or three minutes on that subject. Very good training for everyone, because then you learned. It is astonishing, you know, how many people who hold high positions are not able to do public speaking. You ask them to get up and do a quick speech at a lunch or dinner or to take the chair or something, it is quite amazing how many people are not.
So have I given you the impression I want to? We had the most marvellous completely-rounded education, the kind that I would wish everyone to have, because we had marvellous head-teachers, we were taught proper subjects and we were taught also that other people would judge the reputation of our school by us, and education was not just the subjects - it was the general courtesy towards others and the appearance and so on. [end p8]
Joe Steeples, Woman
Before we move to the present, the clich&eacu; is that schooldays are the happiest days of your life. How would you address that?
Prime Minister
No, I have never actually believed that, never, and I think that anything that goes wrong in your younger days, your capacity to cope with the worries that you have then is very much less than as you get older your capacity to cope with the sometimes larger worries that you get. If any tiny thing went wrong, I used to worry and worry and worry.
Also, most of us - I say “most of us” &dubellip; certainly, I felt as one got older you had obviously learned a great deal at school and if you do not learn some things at school you never pick them up later, but I just much enjoyed the enlargement of freedom that we got after one went out into life with one's own job.
They were happy, but I think it is wrong to say to children: “schooldays are the happiest of your life!”. I think it is much better to say what I learned later: Often it is the way you approach your problems and the way you approach your work which determines how you feel about it. Certainly, if you approach it in a very cheerful way and determined to do the best you can and you can do the best you can, then life is very much better, if you determine it. If you approach it, you know, really rather complaining about everything, you do not like, if you wish things [end p9] were different, etc., then, on the same set of circumstances, the same school, the same teachers, the same facilities, you will not get so much out of it. One was taught to do things. You tend to get out of a subject or an experience as much as you put into it, so if you do not put a lot into it you will not get a lot out of it.
The other thing that one was taught very much, I think, probably by my parents, because we had a lot of friends and very modestly, we had people in to tea or supper or would go out for a picnic together in friendship, and I was always taught that if you want to have a friend you must first be a friend and it was always this balance of things: if you want to get a lot out of life you must put a lot into it. If you want to have friends, then you must be a friend and always - again this is very much Beatrice Robertsmy mother and Alfred Robertsfather - whatever we had we shared.
My mother used to do two big bakes a week. Actually, before we went to church, she used to get up very early on Sunday morning because she also worked in a shop, and have a big bake. She did the pastry and the cakes and then she did another big bake on Thursday and baked bread, and always something would go out to someone else. “Take that to Miss So and So, to Mrs. So and So!” It might have been to someone who either liked the things she baked or to someone whom she thought could do with something, but it was always second nature. We know someone and they are not well or she is living alone, she will not do much cooking or she will have need of it. [end p10]
Now these are all of the things, but it is a combination of the most marvellous family and the most marvellous teachers and still I must say this: my school is every bit as good - indeed, I think the facilities now are even better - but a school is not judged necessarily by its facilities. Sorry! That is too long. I want to give you the atmosphere.
Joe Steeples, Woman
What are you seeking to change by your Bill? What do you think is wrong with State education that you need to change?
Prime Minister
I should perhaps say that the school I went to was really a grammar school. We called it a “high school” in those days. It was a grammar school and it still is.
What do I think is wrong?
I think schools are very varied these days. Many children get a marvellous education. Some children are not getting a good education, and I think some of the problems occur in the inner cities.
I think some of the problems occur because, in my view, some of the schools are too big, and if you get a pupil who is difficult or if a teacher is unfortunate enough in having a number of pupils [end p11] in the class who are ill-disciplined, who have not been taught at home to be disciplined, they disrupt the class, and it is very very difficult for the teacher to teach.
Also, I think some pupils are not taught the clear subjects and taught as well as we were. I think there have been various theories about teaching, which when put into practice, have not turned out to be the right ones and pupils, instead of concentrating on being taught and learning are not getting that kind of education now.
If you ask parents what they want, you will find that in most cases they want their children to be taught, in general, everything that is good, so they are quite keen on basic religious education. Everything that is good.
They want them to be taught in a way which gets the best out of a child on the basic subjects. They want them to be taught good English, whether it is writing or speaking. They want them to be taught to come out with reasonably good basic arithmetic and mathematics. They want them to be taught something about science. They want them to know about the great history of our country. They want them to know about geography. I think some of them are not yet so keen on languages. I think that we should be, but it is because we have not got a natural border - a land border - with a country that speaks a different language. Languages are going to be [end p12] different, but basically, they want them to be taught to be well-behaved and polite.
You will not find much difference wherever the people are in the country, whatever their background. That is what they want them to be taught, and they want them to be taught. They just do not want them to just kind of pick up learning if they wish. You go to school to be taught and of course, be taught how to think.
Well now, that is not quite the way in which things are done in all schools. This is why we are giving parents and governors the opportunity that if they are not satisfied with the kind of education their children are getting, then they can opt out of the local authority and they can run the schools. It is what I would call an independent state school. They will get the money direct from the department, the Ministry of Education & Science, instead of from the local authority.
We will set up organisations to teach them how to run those schools and the independent private schools. When I talk to them, I say: “Now look! There are going to be independent state schools and people might be a little bit fearful of how to run them!” and they say: “Look! We will help! We, after all, have been running schools for quite a long time!” and then, the voluntary-aided schools. Of course, the Church has been running schools for quite a long time, so we can help them, and they will have a much bigger say [end p13] into the input of education because, after all, education is something that affects every single person in the country. Every single person now has to spend eleven years compulsorily in education and every child should come out with reasonable basic skills, every child, and this is why we are saying that they must be taught now basic subjects and why they must be tested at certain intervals, because some children are late learners, but if you find by seven or eight that they are not reading and do not know the alphabet, well you ought to know. You need to know, because if they cannot read and have a reasonable basic reading by that time. &dubellip; I mean a lot of your education in the future is on reading, and if they are going to be afraid either of the reading or of the elementary mathematics they have learned by that time, they have not got the basis to go on and if ever a child is afraid that they have not grasped things, it affects their whole future. So you have got to have them tested because they might need special attention to bring them up to standard.
Joe Steeples, Woman
Some people are worried about the aspects of education that you do not take “A” levels in or “O” levels in, the aspects like teaching of right and wrong and morality and ethics and basic curriculum. [end p14]
Prime Minister
This is why, of course, really, religious education in fact is, from the 1944 Education Act, a compulsory subject.
Now, for most of us religious education was obviously in this country based on the Biblical, both the Old and New Testament and, of course, you were taught right and wrong at home; you were taught it at school; you were taught it in your religious education. We had little exams in our own school in Scripture.
Education is about more than what you are examined in. Certainly, examinations are a great help because you work much harder, I think, when you have got an examination, much harder.
We took some general examinations in domestic science, but when we came up to our 0-level year we dropped domestic science and we were not examined in it. I do not necessarily think it it was an 0-level subject then and that is why I was saying that I had this fully-rounded education which I think is very important.
Joe Steeples, Woman
Yes, but where do you see the &dubellip; I mean, religious education is not at the core of &dubellip;
Prime Minister
No, but it is still a compulsory subject. The syllabus is not laid down - and never was - by central government. Actually, [end p15] the syllabus is laid down by the local community &dubellip; in some of them are the local vicars &dubellip; and there is a local committee. I think, if I might say so, that some very strange things have been happening in some schools about religious education.
You see, if you do not have it based in this country predominantly on the Biblical scriptures, the Old Testament and the New, then not only are you missing what is at the basis of the beliefs of this country … when I say predominantly, you could always opt out if you were of a totally different religion, and still can, but if you do not, if you are not taught that … we have an established church and, of course, that is the Old Testament and the New … many people have a sect of Christianity which is not the established church, but it is still the Old Testament and the New … but if you are not taught it based upon the Biblical scriptures, you neither understand what motivates the basic human rights, freedom and responsibility in this country and that your rights come not from government but from some religious belief much stronger than belief in a god and that no government can take away the rights which God gave which are birthrights, you will not understand that; you will not understand a lot of the history of this country.
Of course, much of it was church history, much of it was ecclesiastical history. You will not understand the Crusades, you will not understand the Reformation. You also will not [end p16] understand a lot of the language in this country, a lot of the references in this country. You will not understand what the Good Samaritan is. You will not understand the Parable of the Talents, the Parable of the Sower. You will not understand the meaning of words like “Philistine”. You will not understand a good deal of the literature of our country. The Bible is the most fantastic literature.
So it really is important that everyone is taught that and it is why it is still kept as a compulsory subject and I think it was understood that it should be predominantly Christian and, of course, that is also based on the Old Testament as well as the New, but you always were able to opt out.
Joe Steeples, Woman
With the best will in the world, some children going to the wrong schools find it very difficult to learn because of an overtone of violence around the playground. How would you seek to cure that?
Prime Minister
This is totally new since our day, totally new and, of course, if you were not at school - truancy. If you were not at school, where the register was read every morning, immediately an inquiry would be made or there would be a note sent to school and there would be a school attendance officer. [end p17]
Do not forget, I was not brought up in a very big city or a very big school nor a school on split sites, so it made it very much easier.
The violence, the truancy, the indiscipline, makes it extremely difficult for teachers to teach in some schools and I understand their problems and I have felt for some time that where you have children who either because they have not had the kind of upbringing or security in the home and therefore they have not got the basic security or where, even worse than that, they have suffered at the hands of their parents or been neglected, I personally feel that we really should try to have some smaller schools for those, a bigger proportion of teachers to pupils, because when you get that situation the child must feel above all that the child matters to that teacher, really matters, and it is much easier to get that feeling in a smaller school, which is one reason why I have always wanted an alternative to big comprehensive schools. There is no earthly reason why you should not have small comprehensive schools. I think it would help the children. I think it would fulfill where there has been a background of violence in the home and I might say it is very difficult to teach the Scriptures, God is a Father, if your own father is violent.
I think it would give the child the only kind of security sometimes that it is likely to get and it is very important there [end p18] that you have continuity of teacher and there are some teachers dedicated to doing this kind of work and there are some people in the church who are dedicated to doing this kind of work and I think also it would help the teachers then to give much more attention to the teaching in the class when they can know that the children, basically, they are interested in learning.
Joe Steeples, Woman
How optimistic are you about the people going through the system now who are going to be the next generation of voters and workers?
Prime Minister
We have some splendid young people going into teaching now. Indeed, they were coming out in my time as Education Minister.
At first, with the great expansion of education immediately in the post-war period, a fantastic expansion of teachers. I think you had to have two 0-levels to take a teacher's training course, but some of these teachers were very good with children. They were marvellous with children. It is not always the best academics who are the best teachers.
How optimistic?
Look! In a large number of schools, children are getting an extremely good education. In others, the parents are thoroughly [end p19] dissatisfied but do not know what to do about it. We are giving them a way out.
I was worried by some attitudes which were thoroughly undermined by that strange decade of the kind of latter half of the Sixties when so many of the rules were not merely broken - rules are always broken, but so long as it is understood and everyone knows what the rules are then you know where you are.
I do think that there has been a movement the other way. I notice a lot of young people are really immensely grateful if they did have what I call a more disciplined education. I do not mean harsh discipline, but a kindly, understanding discipline at schools. The rules are made so that you have consideration for other people and if you do not live by any rules, you do not have consideration for other people and now I find young people saying: “We do want some clear rules to live by; we do want some clear standards to live by!”
Of course, young people always break them; of course, the rules will always be broken, but the thing is to have an accepted standard.
Even the most deeply religious person knows how imperfect we all are. [end p20]
Joe Steeples, Woman
Did you ever misbehave at school ever?
Prime Minister
Good Heavens, we are none of us perfect! We are none of us perfect and my goodness me, how awful it would be if you found a person who said: “I am perfect!” … say “What a terrible prig you must be and how inhuman you must be! It is just that you simply do not understand!”
Of course, people break rules.
Joe Steeples, Woman
What was the worst thing ever said about you on a school report?
Prime Minister
Oh goodness me, I have no idea!
Joe Steeples, Woman
The term “Thatcher's Britain” means various things to various people, either a golden age that is coming or in fact a term of abuse.
What sort of Britain are you trying to build for the young people at school now? [end p21]
Prime Minister
What kind of Britain?
First, as I say, riches are not only money. The greatest riches of all are a good family, which you can get at all income groups. A good family is the most important thing of all, and a good education. Those are the greatest riches of all, far more important than being born into a family which has a good deal of money or anything else.
I remember later, when I was Secretary of State for Education, going to a primary school in a very good area and the head-teacher saying to me: “Mrs. Thatcher, you must understand I have as many problems with the children from professional and well-to-do homes as I have with children who are poorer!”
Government must do the things which only Government can do and must do.
First, the Government must run the nation's affairs soundly.
Second, it must make certain that the taxation system gives people incentives to enterprise and to work, to be responsible for themselves and to generate enough wealth for us also to carry out our duties to other people. If we do not have that, we do not get the resources to have the best education, the best health service.
Thirdly, it must do the defence and the law and order. For the law and order, it requires partnership with people.
And fourthly, if I might put it this way, it must run the economy in such a way that what we call a “ladder of opportunity” is provided. How far young people climb up is a matter for them. [end p22] Some might wish to work and work, and work becomes almost everything and they are very talented and work becomes everything and they build up great things and it is up to them how far they climb up.
Others might say: “Well, I have got up to a certain responsibility. I am very happy with what I have got. I have many hobbies and I am a good, loyal citizen and this is where I want to spend some of my time, on my hobbies, things outside work!” It is up to them if the ladder is there.
And at the same time you must provide what we call - this is Winston ChurchillWinston's - “a safety net of security”, so that in a modern civilisation there can be no question of not having enough money to keep you in food, shelter and a basic standard of living, and that is why we have Social Security.
We also have to provide - and I owe so much to my own education - a good education for young people. That is where we started, and if you look back at the great reconstruction in the post-war period, it was Winston who said: “People must have access to the very best medicine regardless of whether they can pay for it or not!”
Let me say this: You are only able to provide all this when people are not only free to use their talents - subject to rules of health and safety, etc. - but are enterprising and this country was built long before we had a Ministry of Industry. This country was [end p23] built because people had initiative, they had a sense of adventure, they built up their own firms, they built up their own factories.
One of the great things about this country was that as people did that they lived with the community, they lived in the towns that were built up round the industry, and as they did we had the great increase at that time in education. It came with prosperity.
One just must understand the increase in prosperity has not been only materialistic. As it came, people built schools, they built churches. Some of the great people built libraries. They knew that a city was not complete unless they also built art galleries, unless they got music. You will find the great coming of the things like Barnardoes, the NSPCC.
With that increasing prosperity in the last century, came an enormous increase in consciousness of your duty towards your neighbour.
I get fed up to the back teeth when I hear some people say that wanting to do better for your family, either as a result of your own work or earnings, is materialistic. I say nonsense!
What is wrong with wanting to give your family a better start in life than you had, in a better home, with better facilities? What is wrong in wanting to have enough to enable them to perhaps have private music lessons, to take them abroad, to see that they have better clothes, better food, to see that they have a car that [end p24] they can go and see some of the wonders of Britain and the wonders of the world? This is what you work for. It is not materialistic. It is wanting to give your family a better life. It is wanting to have enough.
I went round a Housing Association for Old People the other day. Marvellous! One of the very good things with partnership between Government and the private sector. I went into one flat to see a marvellous lady, a grandmother. Beautifully furnished. She said: “You know, my son is very good to me! He gave me fitted carpets for last Christmas in the flat!” What is wrong with wanting to have enough left over to be able to do that for your mother?
What is wrong with wanting, instead of getting up with a banner and saying “Protest! Government must do more about this!” having enough to say: “I must do something about it!”?
You would be surprised at the number of people, you know, who used to say: “Look! There is an old lady down there and she is cold. The Government ought to do something about it!”
Now, at our home, we would have gone and done something about it ourselves.
Can I just say one thing? The great restoration of old historic buildings, whether it be churches, old houses, monuments, all of the increasing facilities to the arts, to music, all of the [end p25] increased facilities in the standard of living, the enrichment of our lives, has come because out of the efforts of our work we have been able to create more prosperity.
Why can we put far more into the Health Service now than ever was dreamed of eight years ago? Why are nurses better paid than ever was dreamed of eight years ago? Why were we able to give 16 percent more to teachers last year? Because the prosperity has been created not by government but by individual men and women of talent and ability, of leadership, who knew how to create and build a business and get people working together, and there is some capacity which you cannot always teach in school.
Sometimes you can understand it, but sometimes you find that the people who do best in life are not always those who have done best at school. They have got something. They have got an inner personality. They have got a talent for doing things. They have got a talent for getting on with people. Now, getting on with people is something that should be brought out in school, because you can see it in leadership in your higher levels of your school. It is not always the people who do best in building up a business who have done best at school. A scientific business, yes.
You see, it all comes together; the condition for having good public services is a very good, thriving, flourishing business community, because that is where the money is created and that is what we tap to give us the social services. [end p26]
So, yes it is an opportunity society; it is a society where this Government has done more than any previous government in history to say: “You earn your own money. Your money is as good as anyone else's and we are very anxious to give you incentives to have your own home. That is your first ownership of property. We are very anxious you do not stop there, that you build up your own security by owning some shares and some savings so that when you become older you have got some security of your own to fall back again and you will think of the future!” because for the first time - by the time we have, I think, come to perhaps the end of this Parliament and the next, most people will be in a position to leave their children something for the future.
What a totally different society! It is because you cannot do all the things you want to do unless the wealth is created and it does not matter whether you are the Church, whether you are a charity, whether you are helping people in Ethiopia, whether you are helping the NSPCC, whether you are helping the Arts, whether you are helping to clean St. Pauls or Westminster Abbey or St. Margarets or York Minster, it is because of the increasing prosperity that has been created and it is totally wrong to call it materialism.
Sorry, am I getting some messages across? [end p27]
Joe Steeples, Woman
Many! Do you think there will be a return to the generous values of the Victorian &dubellip;
Prime Minister
Look! The amount of money that is now being given voluntarily is increasing. I think that people, when they hear of a difficult case, when they hear of a disaster, they give and they give and they give and there are great untapped resources because the state can never do everything, nor should it try to do everything. It really should not.
The Good Lord gave us the freedom to choose between doing good and evil. He gave us the right to choose and choice is really one of the essences of freedom and of ethics and you can exercise that if you are left with enough money of your own to do it and that is why we do not think that Government should make all the choices with your money by high taxation. You have an incentive, you will create more wealth. The more you create, the more we can put down the rate of taxation and still get the same amount - even more - of money. I am sorry, where did this question start?
Joe Steeples, Woman
Do you think people will become as generous. &dubellip; [end p28]
Prime Minister
Yes. People are giving. George Bernard Shaw put it best: freedom incurs responsibility, and it is bringing out the responsible side. It is not saying: “Oh, I am leaving it to the Government to do!” Freedom means that you have responsibility towards others. They are two sides of the same coin and you cannot have the coin without having both sides, so it is both a sense of responsibility and a sense of kindliness and courtesy towards others, and thoughtfulness for others. That is what I was taught.