Secretly ..Thatcher

Margaret Thatcher secretly tried to press ahead with a politically toxic plan to dismantle the welfare state even after a “cabinet riot” and her famous declaration that the “NHS is safe with us”, newly released Treasury documents show.
The plan commissioned by Thatcher and her chancellor Sir Geoffrey Howe included proposals to charge for state schooling, introduce compulsory private health insurance and a system of private medical facilities that “would, of course, mean the end of the National Health Service”.
Some of her cabinet ministers believed they had buried the plan, drawn up by a seconded Treasury official, Alan Bailey, from the Central Policy Review Staff (CPRS), at a special cabinet meeting on 9 September 1982.
Nigel Lawson in his memoirs said the paper of “long-term public spending options” had been buried after what he described as “the nearest thing to a cabinet riot in the history of the Thatcher administration”. In her own memoirs, Thatcher claimed to have been “horrified” by the CPRS paper and insisted that she and her ministers had never seriously considered it.
The CPRS paper had been partially leaked and she was only able to quell the subsequent furore by famously pledging the “NHS is safe with us” at the October 1982 Tory party conference. Downing Street briefed that the toxic plan had been “shelved”.
But Howe’s Treasury private office papers released by the National Archives on Friday confirm that not only had that special cabinet meeting taken place to discuss the plan but that two months later, far from being buried, Thatcher was still secretly trying to press ahead with it.
The Treasury papers show that once a clutch of tricky by elections were out of the way she was keen to keep pushing the plan and held a series of meetings in December to “to soften up the big three spenders” under her chairmanship “to resolve any immediate political anxieties”.
The papers also show after the 9 September cabinet showdown Howe rejected an approach from the Adam Smith Institute, the right wing libertarian think tank, to back their “slightly oddly-named Omega Project” despite it being personally endorsed by Thatcher’s own economic adviser, Sir Alan Walters.
The Omega Project papers said the plans were modelled on research by a rightwing US thinktank for the incoming Ronald Reagan administration. It also argued for many state services to be replaced by “more efficient alternatives from the private sector”.
Howe rejected the approach in a note on 29 September not because he objected to their proposals to dismantle the welfare state but because he feared its “ill-researched proposals, which will be portrayed as strongly resembling our own, might prove an embarrassment”. The then chancellor added: “Every proposal will be seized on and hung (round) our necks. Cf CPRS Report. I see v. (underlined twice) great harm.”
The Treasury papers show that “no real action” was taken on the CPRS “radical right manifesto” until November 1982. “The prime minister (we understand privately) did not want to stir this up before the cabinet discussions on the 1982 survey, nor risk any adverse publicity while the last two by elections were pending. The leaks of the CPRS report did not help,” a senior Treasury official, Peter Mountfield, told Howe in a confidential note entitled “Follow-up of cabinet discussion on long-term public expenditure”.
Margaret Thatcher secretly continued to pursue the politically explosive plans even after ministers thought they had been killed off by a cabinet revolt. Photograph: PA
“The prime minister has arranged a series of meetings with the main spending ministers to discuss the follow-up to the discussion in cabinet on 9 September. The ministers involved are Sir Keith Joseph (7 Dec, 11 am), Mr Fowler and Mr Nott (14 Dec, 9.30 and 15 Dec 5.30.). You and the chief secretary will be invited to each meeting.”
Joseph was education secretary, Norman Fowler was health secretary and John Nott was defence secretary. The CPRS paper proposed to cancel Trident and halt the growth in defence spending.
“The only paper formally before the meetings will be the original interdepartmental report on long-term trends in public expenditure ... The CPRS paper on options is technically a non-paper, but will be in everyone’s minds (and no doubt in their briefing folders too),” Mountfield told Howe.
The chancellor was told the objective of the meetings was “designed to soften up the three big spenders. Without their support the operation will not work. Your main aim, I suggest, should be to ensure that no sacred cows are prematurely identified. Given the prime minister’s concern about the NHS, this may be difficult. But we want to make sure that the ministers concerned do not close off any options at this stage, and, if possible, put their personal weight behind the exercise.’’
These papers flatly contradict Thatcher’s claim that the CPRS proposals were never seriously considered by ministers. The Treasury files released on Friday do not record what happened at the meetings with the big three spenders.
But a Treasury official’s note on 28 October 1982 to the then chief secretary to the Treasury, Leon Brittan, gave an indication of the depth of internal opposition Howe and Thatcher faced. “DHSS (health and social security) officials say there is no chance that Mr Fowler would agree to a further study of this idea. I imagine in the circumstances, and especially given the prime minister’s speech at Brighton it is difficult to press them.”
In his memoirs, Howe reflects that although the row had postponed the “fundamental debate” he had hoped to start, until after the 1983 general election, “nothing from the Treasury’s point of view is ever as quite as bad as it seems”.
He reported that the impact of what he called the “CPRS furore” had ensured ministers made no new spending pledges and had “set the pace for our forthcoming 1983 manifesto”.

too much for me to read there daz .........

but my view is most of our mp`s / politicians are corrupt, and out for their own ends ....they seem to forget they work for the people of the uk, and that we pay their wages,

people seem to think that because the majority voted to leave the EU, that it would give us back control of our own borders, hence less immigrants pouring in to the uk...but reality is, its our own government who is bringing them here, encouraging them with jobs, benefits and grants, its the government who want them here.

this link may be of interest to some of our members .

https://europathelastbattle.wordpress.com/2017/11/16/the-frankfurt-school-and-their-evil-agenda/

Fair enough David.
Maybe should have put in in 2-3 parts... but then thing the last two ould be irrelevant.
In simple terms it proves that Thatcher was hell bent on selling the NH.H.S to her friends... and of course Ronald Reagan / U.S.A. getting a big chuck.
Now the USA do have a big slice of investment, taking money out as norm for share holders. Like Richard Branston has a million or two invested in the N.H.S. He earlier this year invested a £billion to bolster what he had already invested.

bYour post above David is spot on. A few privileged rule and divide and take.

daz i think your right, thatcher and the majority of the politicians now want to sell the NHS off to their pals / family .........our local hospital hires high numbers of agency workers who do no work directly for the NHS, and also the NHS RENTS some of the hospital buildings, they do not own them ..........that in its self is dodgy to me

If you consider all the events leading to the present situations the world finds its self in, then their are no innocents.

There are enough atrocities recounted by every nation to prove the inability of mankind to find a solution to all living together in harmony.

Greed, the seeking of power over others, manipulation and exploitation being rampant throughout history.

The only difference now is that those involved have developed devious means pf covering their activities up.

Every so often a pure white turns out to be a far darker shade and many are never uncovered.

Thats life at the present and past.

Regards.

Agreed Misty.
One laughs, sadly, regards the 'Freedom of Knowing' after 30 years all past tense, happenings can be revealed -though not must be!
Yes! We learn and see a lot, usually what a specific body wants to be known. Still too much is not revealed obviously. However, then do we need to know?
Yes probably what is relevant to us, and this past area or two. Ok, Rhodes was a horrid racist, so what. Lincoln, the most hated, or dislike, president of all time. What a hypocrite and bias man he was. Yes, much of the opposite is taught and believed, such as he freed the 'Blacks'!. However, he hated the 'Blacks with a passion!
His wife owned a Plantation of 'Blacks'! Nevertheless, he bought a vast amount of land, Sierra Leona, in Africa to sent all blacks there. However, the South stopped it because of the threat of 'Rising costs and slave labour' Ok. Nevertheless, the North complained saying it was unjust and unfair, as they could not compete! Mind the did not grow cotton crops but could use the cheap labour, to put it bluntly. Hence a 'Civil war'. When the South was losing, hence the freeing the blacks to fight for freedom (Yes that silly notion that never has, nor ever will be achieved. It is just a 'Banner' for fools to die for)!
Of course, they never got freedom! Just a false sense. They were still treated really bad etc. Gosh, could write a book about 'Lies and Deceit'!
Yes, a little knowledge can be dangerous... or just a complete waste of time and effort!