Margaret Thatcher, who passed away yesterday, polarised opinion perhaps more than any other British politician. Yet, whatever you thought of her, she was ahead of her time when she made her breakthrough environment speeches to the Royal Society in 1988 and to the UN the following year.
In these speeches, which are worth reading in full, she raised the public profile of global environmental threats such as climate change, ozone depletion and habitat destruction all driven by a growing population consuming more. Mike McCarthy in the Independent argued in 2011 that Lady Thatcher's "passionate rhetoric" demonstrated that tackling climate change was not a left-wing cause. Roger Harrabin, BBC's environment correspondence, wrote yesterday that she legitimised green concerns.
Perhaps it was her scientific background that gave her confidence and authority to talk about these things. I wish those today that do not have such training, had more respect for those that do.
But, in 2002, she exposed a paradox in her beliefs when she wrote: "Whatever international action we agree upon to deal with environmental problems, we must enable our economies to grow and develop, because without growth you cannot generate the wealth required to pay for the protection of the environment". This view is shared by some politicians today but only work if economic growth is decoupled for environmental harm (such as pollution, habitat destruction and overexploitation of species).
The publication yesterday of the Natural Capital Committee's first report is the latest reminder that we have failed to find solutions to the problems Lady Thatcher highlighted a quarter of a century ago: our natural assets (including wildlife populations) continue to decline at an unprecedented rate, the pressures are growing and our current response is inadequate. I shall say more on this later this week.
One last quote (which Lady Thatcher made during the Falklands crisis) is one which I fear may hold true for many politicians today: "When you've spent half your political life dealing with humdrum issues like the environment, it's exciting to have a real crisis on your hands." Now there is no doubt: the planet faces the twin crises of biodiversity loss and catastrophic climate change. And we are still awaiting the right political response.
What is your abiding memory of Lady Thatcher?
I know you have an opinion and it would be great to hear your views.
I do of course mean the great and very under recognised Derek Ratcliffe architect of the essential legal architecture of the protection of British wildlife, author of books such as The Peregrine and amongst many other things the phrase that described Golden Plover chicks as "exceedingly elusive" which, in my view, is a grand understatement.
If only that great communicator David Attenborough had underpinned the Natural History Unit with a legal framework post Rio 1992 that has 10% of the strategic value that SSSI's have given nature conservation.
I bumped into the street party on the way home from watching the football in the pub; there were hundreds of people there, some I knew. It was happy and peaceful and I went home around 11 as "it was getting worse for wear". The police arrived at 01.30, ten battle buses ie over 100 police in armour with shields raised having apparently asked the remnants to disperse. Some police were hurt and the resultant scenes were highly distressing as I hear some present got a "hiding"; neighbours undisturbed by "the party" were awoken by the fracas and the very disturbing scenes that ensued. Increasingly these events are attended by "the underclass" for want of a better word who hold a dark mirror to the offshore elite; both are a product of her reign and I discovered about "the riot" later that afternoon living slightly "up the hill".
There was one last year just across the M32 motorway and they are almost annual events in our cities with weasel faced alienated youth having its say in the only language it understands best and in Bristol we seem sometimes to be returning to the 19th Century when Ministers would descend on mining areas renowned for drunkeness and violence to preach abstinence.
I have always credited Thatcher for her formation of the IPCC and John Gummer as one of the better Environment Secs but the scenes above are her real legacy and the inheritance of North Sea oil was not spent on securing an independent sovereign wealth fund or a serious degree of national independence via tide, solar and wind. I believe those speeches were written by Crispin Tickell in response the Green results in the European elections at that time and she never really believed in them.
Certainly the Nature Conservancy Council has never been bettered and that unity was dismantled and she was loathed by the great John Ratcliffe for daring to infringe on the shooting on the Islay estate of one of her "greatest beasts" the aristocratic landowner Nickolas Ridley.
I propose a statue at Sandy to the great John Ratcliffe.
RTC - I agree that we won't make progress if we try to please everybody all the time. We need conviction, courage and loads of hard work.
Margaret Thatcher was a remarkable politician in the sense that she acted with the courage of her convictions (not for reasons of political expediency); in so doing she was prepared to for-go personal popularity in order to change the world and settle for the judgement of history. In this regard - as in a propensity for "power-napping" - she had much in common with her role model, Winston Churchill. Her impact has been likened to 'throwing a grenade into 1970s British Politics and out of the resulting social debris and carnage forging a new, wholly transformed, economic and political landscape' - changes which, she later noted ironically, made the Labour Party electable in the modern era. In the struggle on behalf of Nature, perhaps, we should also be prepared to concede contemporary popularity in exchange for a legacy of greater (environmental) effectiveness.
My view of Lady Thatcher is, I think, much like yours Martin. a bit of a contradiction. She did and said many good things about the environment but then often, indirectly contradicted them shortly afterwards. I agree, given when she was in power in the 1980s, which is some time ago now, she could be said to have been ahead of her time and her scientific background did come through. Although one often did not agree with her, at least one felt then that there was some one in politics that had a basic understanding of scientific matters, a situation gravely lacking now. I am afraid our current politicians with there backgrounds of political research, historical and political advising and legal training are very woeful in that respect.
I am not sure if it is "bring back Maggie all is forgiven", but one does wonder about it!! I think she would have coped much better with today's twin problems of biodiversity loss and climate change than "the current lot".