his watch. and i will through in another political point, and we must end it here, it was this point that wilson realized he needed the complete backing of the democratic party that included the vast block of one third of the senate and congress which were southern democrats. he remained true to them, the southern cause and got his new freedom. it was passed on the back of the african-american in this country. thank you very much. [ applause ] >> more booktv coming up talk with the book on margaret

thatcher and a book on the 19t six century general who liberated six southern countries from the spanish empire. >> my name is kevin nelson and we are in bellingham, washington. we have been in business for nine years. we started in 2004. we use a wind mill primarily which is a letter press found in most print shops. we use it for printing and that many people unemployi modern tim for printing. a lot are using six-foot long

tower presses and that could send out tens of thousands of prints. this is more for artistic printing. it is the heart of our business. when you are buying something made with intention it has more presence. if you are sending a card to someone that hasn't been mass produced but handled by an individual i would hope it has meaning on the end that it was made with love. >> we look at the history of bellingham, washington this weekend. >> afterwards is next with charles moore talking about his

book "margaret thatcher". this is an hour long interview. >> welcome to afterwards. this is the sunday times of london and with me is charles moore, the journalist and author and former editor of the spec t spectator and charles is the man who sent me to washington in 1999 and belfast. charles has written the first of two volumes making thatcher from her birth to her finest moments

takes out when they leave. and she is an oxford graduate. and they received her an

honorary degree so she gave them to another school. she said why don't you pick someone you get along with and let them get going and give them the access and the chance to look at the papers. and she chose me. this was back in 1997. and obviously, it is an intimidating process but an honor and fascinating opportunity. so i said yes and i have been working with them since. so the great bulk of the research took place from 2004. but it is complete access that hasn't happened to others. so she turned the key and the lock. >> it is authorized, ms. thatcher -- that is what you

call her. >> well margaret until ms. thatcher is what she became. >> she was somebody who didn't like to talk about personal matters. she didn't want to dwell on her own inner life. she is somebody who is tidy and god -- got -- rid of things. there must have been difficulty tackling her live. >> she is a historian's nightmare because she didn't want to throw things away. but luckily once you are prime minister the officials will keep it. the problem is earlier in her life and how you could crack this because she destroyed everything. and not because she wished to hide secrets, she is tidy and

through the paper away. it was the way she gave access was key. she didn't know what was there. she had no brothers and one sister. and the sister was four years older and the sister told me a lot about their childhood which wasn't known and had a vast collection of letters from margaret to murial. so you get the complete picture in margaret's own words of her education, her teens, her love of film, and clothes and there is more about clothes than politics, and oxford and what it was like there, starting with the world of politics, and falling in love and boyfriends.

>> she had a number of boyfriends which people were surprised about. >> the only way she talked about it was to deny it. you don't have to tell the truth about things like that. it was -- she said no boyfriends before that and there were three before dennis which all appear in the letters in an amusing way and interesting and revealing way. and you can see through that is that her making the choice of her life and what am i going to do and what person will i be and whom will i marry. the description of the farmer who became muriel's husband. >> please read it. >> she was an active young

conservative and this guy took her ought. he was pestering her and this is what she says to her sister. i said yes and we dined at the george. he is 35 and is naive. we presented his credentials to him. his farm is worth money and he has 500 shilling of his and that. and he left a nine penny tip for the waiter. being a scottsman that is shocking. they are legendary for being tight with their money. he drove me home in his presence old car. and on the way i had i could not fix another date so he is going to phone he.

i still don't know his name. his people are farmers and he has an accent and i am afraid he's going to be a nuisance. he was serious about her. she wasn't serious about him. but there is a brilliant moment when he gave her a hand bag and she loves hand bags. she says i have to stay with him. but she passed him on to her sister. and willy married murial. >> and there were linking of thatcher not seeing a life as a house wife and not wanting to go thought route. >> that is right. she went to dinner and there was an instant that happened in those days the men stayed at the

table and the women left. and she stayed. and she thought the women's conversation was boring and you can see here getting the premonition where she doesn't want to be the house wife looked down upon by the men. that is the way she is thinking. she realized it wasn't for her this type of life. it was suited for muriel so she arranged it. she had an older-lover. a doctor. but he was twice her age. and along the rebound along comes dennis. she said he is not an attractive creature, but he proposed and she didn't accept him. but she didn't leap is the way he put it. but then she accepted him.

and as history knows it worked very well. >> how much time did you spend with her personally during the research? >> i got offered this in 1997 and talked to her a lot in the '90s. her mental capacity declined in the 19th century. so later on we had lunch and chat and i would get bits of information that was valuable but i did more focused interviews in the 1990s >> when was the last time you saw her? >> i didn't see her after the final illness where she had an operation in the december and went to the ritz hotel to be looked after. when i last saw her she was

cheerful and in reasonable health but it was sad because she could remember so little. but the quality of her came out in her old age and that was her sweetness of character. she liked the domestic life in older age. >> i am struck by the personal acts of kindness and things that were not for private consumption. the parachute people murdered she wrote individually by hand to each of the family members >> and she set a president that other prime ministers have been set to follow. the british prime ministers write to the families of each bereaved person. she was good at this.

she wrote beautiful hand written letters to people. it is true her basic behavior toward people was very good unless they were rivals and then it wasn't so good. but in terms of her general attitude to humanity in its individual form, particularly if she thought they were moral and good. >> and she could be described as bully but she liked to test people. >> never bullying to a driver or a secretary or a waiter, never ever. very much not. but tough on the cabinet colleague. and the difficulty they had particularly men of that generation didn't want to argue with a woman. and didn't realize she wanted them to come back. her bullying was a deliberate provocation and the successful

ones understood that and said no prime minister you were wrong. and if they knew their stuff she would respect that. and she didn't like the ones that went blustered. >> it seemed like they didn't know how to deal with her. >> tragic isn't too strong a word, i think. jeffrey howe was important and a great success in that. ...

she wouldn't do inapt strength the weakness is the person gets hue humiliated. in the end you want revenge. that is what happened with jeffrey. he got his revenge. >> host: i'm fascinated by the relationship with ronald reagan which is qoped more in the second volume, but, i mean, people talk about a special relationship between britain and the united. what was the relationship between those two leaders? >> guest: in the first volume, is that personal rapport, and it comes parking lotly from -- partly from the individual characters. they liked the difference between the two of them. she's very hyperactive person;

right. always trying to get things done, talking fast, full of energy. he more laid back, charming, relaxed. amusing. and each like the qualities in the ore. that was important. the real importance, i think, which you see in the volume, is they first net 1975. she just had become leader. shehe was in the wilderness hoping for the nomination which he didn't get. didn't get until 1980. they are both -- the world against them. they were against them that the time. they shared a vision of their countries and their civilization going the wrong way. and they agreed about that and had a strong belief it should change. it's also do with economickism. they believed both that the aggression was not going away.

and it was a mistake in policy. it was based on trust which shouldn't actually exist. and hence that's why called "the iron lady." it was the soviets that called her. she and reagan shared that. and that -- and the first thing reagan said when she rang to congratulate him will and strength. and she said yes we will. that was the point. and despite many, many deep disagreements all along the way, there was a basis of trust and mutual support. >> on the war, which is sort of crees -- cra sheen dough of the book. it's her career. it was by no means unqualified support from the americans or even from reagan himself who i think describes himself as ambivalence at one point. it certainly wasn't an easy thing for miss thatcher to get

through. >> host: it was difficult. she many the most incredible crisis. argentina invaded, britain humiliate. not able to recover the islands that's the end of her political career. it would be a lasting hurt to are britain. she sent the task force. she needed -- and in logistical terms. the reagan administration was pro british. you get the weapons come ought of the back door even early on. it was a serious problem for the united. they didn't want latin america destabilized by communism. there was a big faction in the administration that felt it strongly. mr. reagan was trying to sort of strike the balance, if he could. and he would have liked, of course, a deal rather than actual combat. and mrs. thatcher was determined

not have a deal. yet, as i shoe -- show in the book she made big concessions along the way. making the calculation she had to do that in order satisfy world opinion and hoping against hope that the times wouldn't be clever enough to accept it. that hope proved correct. it came late that the united states as they put tilted to britain. and it was always a struggle. it was rarl confusing. and i think without extremely close relationship it would have been harder. she was able to get on the phone to him and talk him through it. and because of her more active grasp for detail which was the big thing. he was a bit of a disadvantage when it was a direct phone conversation. because she would have ever fact sitting in her head. and sometimes his age would discourage the cfghtses. because they thought it would be worse for him. it all worked out beautifully. the british won flat out tremendous american corporation and a great surge of good

feeling between the two country. but it wasn't -- >> host: people like jean. i was shocked to read she went to dinner. >> guest: yes. >> host: on the night of the innovation. >> guest: that's right. one of the motion of the u.n. she thought she to vote in the british way. and so she -- then it came through after she had already voted in the pro british way that she should abstain. she made another speech that would have abstained. until the end she was trying to -- she really didn't want the thatcher -- it was pretty tight and pretty tough. >> host: in particular very pro british. >> host: weinberger and john between them fantastic from a british point view. of course, that shows the strength of the special relationship. because it's that military and intelligence work at the closest. and they sort of very much in term of the atlantic alliance.

that's seem to overriding the important than relations with latin america. >> host: given it wasn't overwhelming british victory at the end 250 troops killed and four ships spunk. so it was, you know, a small war but a bloody and hard-fought one. > guest: yeah. >> host: but significant part of the british establishment didn't think we should go to war at all. and mrs. thatcher would -- with the help of some key figures like henry leech prevailed really to just the get task force sailing. >> host: that's right. she had never had any experience of war at all. she didn't know at all what actually to do. she knew what she wanted. but had to be given validation by experts. that it could be done. she had no idea. when she said how long it would

take to get there. he said three weeks. she said surely you mean three days. that gave a necessary feeling where it is at least possible. i believe that she -- another leader possibly leader who had been in a war would not have done it. they would difficulty even more. so it took a particular sort of courage to trust the armed services do this. and do everything you can diplomatically to keep it on track. when britain won she told the house of commons a cheering. she went out for a drink with the deputy and other people and willie said only you could have done it. and then she started crying because of the relief of it all. dennis, of course, her husband and said have a drink. and but it was a tremendous test of character. she passed it, and that of course, did change everything. some of the people you were

talking about who doubted the war were very keen to get rid of her. she had lots of problem with the economic policies though they were beginning to turn the corner. if they could have got rid of her. they would have. it's the moment which cured her. and really allowed her to have another five or six years of great successes before the troubles at the very end. . >> host: i was astonished by -- some of the british memos and the other subjects. and the very candid remarkses that she would psychological in the margin. >> guest: the way she worked. she didn't write memo of her own. she would receive them all sort -- huge number of documents she went through all the time. she would write all over them when she thought. then her private sectors would -- secretary would put them in a slightly more printable form.

this is part of the fun of studying it. you can see her personality working on all of this material. no matter how dry it is. she's getting the point of it all the time. she would be -- in the way she like did homework. >> host: yeah. she was less commentive in public. she would -- disagreements with president reagan would be aired privately and not publicly. she never -- somebody who was almost incapable of sort of not speaking her mind or at least letting people know how she felt. >> guest: yeah. interesting in your view the reaction on this side of atlantic. i struggle to read the coverage of her life. -- in term of volume. >> guest: yeah. huge. >> host: a real sort of outpouring what does it say about her and perhaps about politician maybe in britain,

europe, these days days in term of stature? >> guest: i think the thing is. i agree with you about the reaction. i felt very much with this book about how much international interest there has been. i expected it, of course, some. and i expected, of course, a british interest. i was absolutely indated from all over the world. and it seems to me what is telling about two thing about her which makes it interesting. one, she did so much. absolutely massive amount of important and interesting things. anybody who seriously interested in history wants to study that. but the other thing is mythological. do it being the first woman and with her particular type of leadership and leadership as a woman. and that is almost like an opera or a story or a is saga. and i find that people respond that all over the world. sometimes say she's a patron saint of taxi driver. i meant a taxi driver who starts

talking about her. and i think that's why she -- it's not so much going to be one particular belief. though her beliefs were very important. it's something about the personality and the style of leadership which sinks to the human memory. it becomes a figure of history like queen elizabeth i, winston churchill. these are big figure. you can't get them out of your head. >> host: yeah. for the last decade we have been spin doctors of meaning ofless statements about the meetings of -- >> >> guest: yeah. >> host: she was -- that was not her in any way at all. >> guest: it was not her. but the supporters who made a mistake here. they often tell you she didn't care what people thought. no politician succeeds if they don't care what people thought. she was, and this is something i acknowledge. a very cunning politician and pragmatic one.

but she was, also, as she said a politician of conviction. and the fascination is how to link them in one human being. if you don't have the conviction you don't know where to go. if you don't have the cunning, you sort of collapse in a heap. it's the ,000,000ture that is so power offul. >> host: i was struck bay comment of one of her advisers, i think, who describes somebody with belief rather than idea. i think you yourself wrote she didn't have an intellectually oddly mind or an original one. >> guest: yeah. >> host: that would be at odds with what some supporters and even perhaps thought about her. >> guest: she had a powerful and sharp mind. but this is also true of her business as well as her intellectual quality. she was quite disorganized. she didn't sort of do one thing for another in an orderly fashion. and needed others to make some sense of this. by the way, i think in some ways in politic it's a strength.

they have to be flexible about event. and people who have a strategy which they model on the business idea, a critical path, they get stuck because it -- events aren't like that. mrs. thatcher would -- she talked too much. and sort of didn't quite make sense sometimes. you needed more -- what you always got though was the fundamental to what it's all about. she was energizing, she couldn't always get the argument completely straight but she was energizing the whole process. and everybody in the whole of white hall through the british government knew held her presence. they knew what it was essentially she was trying to do. they had to make up their minds are you for it or against it? if you were for it, it was an enticing time. >> host: she once -- but actually that's what she

practiced on many occasion >> guest: yes. you're right. the real thing she was doing is making impossible possible. so it was a sort of stretching the stretching the requested -- what politics much capable of doing. >> host: if she had taken the parameters of what she was told was possible never set sail -- >> guest: yeah. >> host: the prime example. there are big long-term policy issue. a classic one in this respect would be privatization. because when she came in to office, she wanted to denationalize. but she didn't believe you really could. because everyone thought it was difficult. and thought who is going want this useless industry. she gradually realized this is the combination of the pragmatism and the conviction. there was a way of doing this. if you could sort the industry out a bit. you could get the state out of them. and so something that looked impossible in 1979, was popular by about 1984, and was universal in other countries by 1990.

so that's an example how it -- >> host: i think she liked to unyielding. if you look at princeton's lukewarm pro european community staff and then after her prime ministership, actually wanted britain to meet the european union. the island she engaged in secrets also the ira later. she was a big -- [inaudible] >> guest: yeah. >> host: she was one of the early starters of gorbachev. there was a flexibility and a development. >> guest: there was. it was something she herself would try to deny.

she could criticize the others for being wobbly. she was more insinuous than she let on. she thought politically. going do something a bit left-wing for her core supporters. she wished to sort of do it as a bit of remove so somebody else could be blamed. she wasn't above passing the blame for one of her decisions to somebody else. >> host: yeah. yeah. you mention the word wobbly. you talk about no time to pussy foot about. the use of the language. tell me about her use of language. >> guest: i think that's a good point. i believe it came chiefly from

her upbringing -- well educate man. he was a methodist preacher. she knew king james version of the bible back to front and used it as a direct almost old fashioned english that comes from nap she would -- she loved the sort of simple words that are in that old fashioned english. she never ever used jargon. she used the word jargon. that's jargon you knew she hated it. and she never lost the capacity to communicate directly to the wide audience. however expert she was on the detail. she would go the wide audience. and sometimes in her remarks as prime minister you find echoes of her father and his sermons and biblical echos.

that sort of thing. for example, she -- one of his sermon he said god wants no faint heart for the ambassador. i find in the war, which she's filming the war cabinet and said i want no faint hearts for this battle. there's strong language in there. i belong to the middle class and strongest part of it. i noticed in your footnote throughout you the school what we call an america the high school and university -- [inaudible]

>> guest: it was very important. she came from the outside. so she had to overcome the double barrier being from the wrong class and the wrong sex starts existing establishment went. it would be a mistake to think she was hostile to traditional social role in britain. she was a huge believer in opportunity. she wasn't a believer in imposing equality. she a sense of british history she respected the monarchy, the constitutional order, and the doctrine. what you find with her is she likes a lot of these sort of distinguished old -- and whatnot. as long as she's being patronized and the thing she would always note about a person who was above her, older, more powerful than her is he patronizing me or not?

so for example she didn't like prime minister harrold mcmill less than. she felt patronized by him. she liked the alec because he treated her like a gentleman. she knew it about every person she dealt with. and she's a woman. she had a strong sense how the man is instinctively reacting to her. i think that's how she saw it. and she wasn't trying to overthrow everything about old britain. what she was trying to do is regalvanize the greatness. >> host: a point you make about her being very conservative on the constitutional matters. she was a believer in the national health service. so although she was about small government, she wasn't about pushing back the frontier of the state. >> . >> >> guest: well, i think she was about pushing back the frontier of the state. more in term of economic management than in term of the social provision. she did want to reform the

welfare state. she did some. but actually not enough. so one of the -- a lot of -- the bad bit of the legacy. not so much the things she tackled but the thing she is didn't. and the national health service one of them. she approached it toward the end. she didn't think it was very good. but, you she a lot to get through. and the first thing was economic reform. and that by and large was strongly. school, hospital, that sort of thing. there was a lot of unfinished business there. >> all right. how -- what was the most surprising thing you learned about her in researching the book? you must have gotten to know her very well. but through the paper and talking to so many people. >> guest: i think it would be the point about the hidden prague pragmatism. if you believe the margaret thatcher version of thatcher all it is is wonderful stand on principle about everything. and this is not completely untrue. she was a person of real principle.

but it's not the only thing. she is intensely political person, and very, very keen on her own survival. and very personally ambitious as well as jen, genuinely patriot. the luck for her they came together. can be a bad thing. she had huge egg gism but served good purposes. >> right. >> host: also it comes through i think you have -- on her personal, on her sort of sense on her interesting -- [inaudible] which i found surprising she was interested -- >> guest: yeah. >> host: throughout her life. >> guest: you shouldn't when you look at how she dressed. but she was. there was always this domestic side to her. and of course the famous wet in the handbag. sometimes a shield, sometimes a more aggressive weapon.

she would -- she knew how to -- she loved having a good handbag and knew the importance of the symbol. and hand bag was inside the handbag we think she loved to dramatically draw out. she would have a little copy of a speech by lincoln or something. and sometimes she could it like a party trick and say the person talking about this without didn't know she knew about the subject. there it was in the bag. she was carrying things that mattered to inert bag. she knew how the symbolism of how to work the visual symbolism of being the woman leader very well. >> host: how many handbags did she have? >> guest: she was economic. i won't be able to give you the number. she loved quality but she also loved economy. and so she tended to be reuse things reworked. with her dresses they are all labeled with different names and when they were work so, you know, she didn't wear them again at the wrong occasion.

she took a lot of dress on loan. you weren't allowed to accept presents but british companies would lend her. she was fascinated by the quality. she knew -- her mother was a seam stress. she knew everything about how they were made. >> host: tell me about her sense of humor. i mean, not talking to the -- [inaudible] you said she wasn't somebody who told jokes. that was rather -- a male thing. but she could be quite flirtation. she could use humor effectively. there was an instance in the book where i think she slipped in the house of commons and said i have a red hot figure for you. >> guest: it's dpiflt to tell when she's playing a game. i think she made a simple mistake which she made a play on. she jumped up with a statistic and said i've got a red hot

figure. awe the men -- ha. and she realizes what she tripped in to. then she played up to it and turned it in to a joke. you're right. she didn't -- she didn't understand jokes. they're a sort of male thing. she had wit. she sort of hit back. come in hard with a sort of pissy thing to say or summed everything up. she was very -- in the way men loved talking rather than doing. once she went a think tank they were congratulating themselves. she was the last speaker and she got up, had to wait for ages and said i would like to say i listened to seven speeches by men. and frankly the cooks may you and the hen lay the eggs. she was the hen.

the women that do thing. it was a sort of way she would turn verbally. >> host: that's right. gorbachev they were arguing. capitalism versus socialism. he took her to a different room and pointed to the painting, which is a royal scene. t the son in toward the evening is coming through cloud. and he said prime minister this is like our conversation. lot of storms but the sun is coming through. and she turned and looked and said, yes, mr. general secretary. but the light is coming from west. and she couldn't have prepared that one, you know. he preprepared it. she had chosen the room and painting. she couldn't. that's wit, isn't it? >> host: absolutely. >> guest: she used later beyond the scope of the volume i remember that the she once said

that every prime minister needs a willie. >> guest: she was innocent and sort of anything with a sexual connotation and all the dirty jokes that men loved. she couldn't understand, terrified of them. came across one instance where somebody said what is your botment to line on this. she is not familiar with the phrase and think it is might be something about the bottom. [laughter] the poor lady gets in a terrible panic. and because she didn't, you know, i think is comes back to the point that hey the only women. men are used the whole time particularly that sort of jokes they tell with one another. many of which are rude jokes. completely not her world. she wasn't a complete sort of prude. not a prude at paul. --

prude at all. she didn't like intruding to personal behaviors of others. she had strong moral standards. she never sort of tried to police personal life. and when some of her colleagues got trouble for sexual difficulties or something like that, she would not tell stories. she realized sometimes they made the situation impossible. she wasn't one to wag the finger at them. she sort, you know, took human beings as they come. >> host: who just a rather difficult phone call slammed the phone down and swore in words that couldn't be repeatedded. she was behind him and heard everything. >> guest: yes. she loved it. she hated having too little to do. it was all the trouble. she would come down to the room where more junior people were

working to see how things were going, and on this particular occasion the chap was trying to negotiate something with the treasury and felt he failed. he was one of the private sector. so he slammed the phone down and swore and realized she was behind him. she was smiling. ..

and you know, in cabinet government you do need to do that, and is unsurprising that some of them got irritated because she could be very irritating. for example, why was it necessary for her to debate all those different measures of the money supply. an important but technical question. if i was finance minister it would have given me brokers to have the finance minister lecturing me, but it is -- it has to do with being so concerned about getting it right >> host: was she able? >> guest: usually she could if trust existed, because all political processes work coalitions' she had people whom she did not really trusted it was a very frank memo from one

of her private secretaries about her management style, tell me about that and how i could -- how she received it. >> host: when things are really bad for her in 1981, a plot a gain sir. and very badly. the data for policy unit centered this absolutely steaming memo. your management style is dreadful. you never think people. your impossible. and i think it had a good effect. this was someone who never would admit that she had done something wrong directly. she would not say, i'm so sorry. i got it wrong. but she would change your behavior. if she would be willing to she would find a way of apologizing. and if she basically trusted the

person who criticized she did this. i think in modern politics with a political advisor had sent such a rude minister -- memo that would have been thrown out. but she did pay some attention. so with a rare exception she accepted candor. >> host: interested in your review and have read your review , the movie about margaret thatcher's life. i found it rather cruel in many ways, and a sense billing her and glossed over and played down politics. what is your view? >> guest: from the point of view of someone who knew lady thatcher it was distressing. it was that a kind thing to

depicted this woman suffering from dementia. but in terms of the wide audience, in a funny way had a good effect on her reputation because it made people realize this crucial thing was they tend not to realize, she was also vulnerable. she felt she must be strong to succeed. when you see that it is touching, and it -- the politics was not very interesting. in terms of a character study it was interesting and it was so brilliantly done by meryl streep, the actual -- actual depiction. she must have meant lady thatcher, but she had not. sometimes it was so uncanny. that was an accurate depiction. >> host: some of the particular details were not actually -- they may have been exaggerated, but the general

manager of it, astonishing, singly good. she never liked saying things about herself anyway, but by then she would never have wanted to go. i did say terror, i'm going to this film that meryl streep is acting new sets. i knew she would not like the idea. no, dear, can you tear it up. i felt i should have gone to the projectionist box and tried to wrestle it out of his hand, but those she had this great egotism gosh she did not like being depicted. she was a little bit shy about yourself. that was true of fiction, novels, films, television. indeed, as a biographer i have come across that problem. she did not want to be looked at

two much. >> host: tell me what it was like to put it together. i mean, hundreds and hundreds of interviews. >> guest: it was 315 people interviewed. that is a lot. i could not delegate any of that paper research in britain. it is important to do the primary stuff. in the united states have realized quite correctly that the volume of material here is so important in that simply would not be able to get to it properly. a wonderful u.s. director of british land, he did the bulk of the research. of course the material was very, very rich in the presidential library department.

much richer in the united states on the concept of europe. that really gives a whole new dimension to her life in the but because you can see how they saw her as well as how we saw them. and, again, it shows you the formidable quality of the relationship, both the frictions and that trans-atlantic relationship, but the friction in the process and the trust and the intimacy of discussion of actual policies, particularly about defense. really remarkable. >> host: when did you complete it? you write about when she died. >> guest: volume two is not complete. i essentially completed volume one quite a long time ago, but it never quite feels like that. more documents come out. you have not finished until you have finished. i have been correcting the last page of the last proof on the

moment she died. i discovered that she died when i got off the train. an extraordinary. we then new that we would publish as soon as we practically could after the funeral. that is what happened. it was of fortnight from death until publication. >> host: but it was agreed. >> guest: she stipulated herself that it would never be in her lifetime and that she would never be allowed to read it. say that people would not think that she tried to control it. i must admit that but that she would try to get to lead. even so, she is not a shrinking violet, but she absolutely never, ever did. say this, don't say that. in that respect, a model citizen. the problem with terror as a biographical subject was in its -- interviewing her because she

sought interviews as combat, like being on television. so ascertain some facts. you always say that because you're a socialist or something like that. she was turning it into a battle. she always saw it as a way of reaching a political message. she somehow could not get out of the interview. if she never had that historical attitude. when she talked about her childhood and her father it was almost sort of not made up, but a very particular purpose at that time. it was not really a reflection.

>> host: it was that she'd deployed her childhood. they were genuine, but she knew had to use them politically. what was interesting was that she has someone neglected father . first not quite enough time. you become very busy. quite a big issue in her mind. we dad before. gilts. a particularly great respect for what her father had taught her. it's the sort of payback that he began it -- becomes is great figure. it was reflected reality.