The Political Rhetoric and Oratory of Margaret Thatcher

This chapter considers the challenges that Thatcher faced in Parliament and the contribution of her performance in this forum to the establishment and embedding of her political persona. The chapter will open by identifying how and why effective parliamentary communication is so important to the morale of the Parliamentary Conservative Party. Numerous parliamentary exchanges will then be examined for the purposes of this evaluation. For example, the chapter will include key interventions such as her infamous opposition to Denis Healey and the Labour Finance Bill in 1975; her contribution to the confidence motion in the Callaghan government in the spring of 1979; her parliamentary statements (and questions) with regard to the Falklands War; her parliamentary justifications for key planks of the Thatcherite reforms, notably in terms of trade union reform and privatisation; her parliamentary responses when dealing with the Westland Affair in 1986; and her infamous ‘no, no, no’ speech in October 1990 and its impact.

This chapter will examine how Thatcher’s keynote speeches, most notably to the annual Party Conference, were received and how these contributed to her persona. The analysis focuses in on conference speeches and notes how Thatcher was addressing two audiences. On the one hand she was trying to convince the party faithful of the political and economic value of Thatcherism. On the other hand, the chapter will emphasise how her conference speeches involved her communicating over the heads of the rank and file in the conference hall, and to the electorate watching the ‘sound bite’ for the news. In the conference speeches section of the chapter emphasis is placed on two speeches: the infamous ‘you turn if you want to’ 1980 speech and the 1984 speech in the aftermath of the Brighton bombing. From an extensive number of set-piece speeches that Thatcher delivered the chapter focuses in on speeches central to the construction of her narrative of Thatcherism.

This chapter identifies and explains how, when and where Thatcher constructed persuasive arguments based on ethos and the credibility derived from her character. The chapter also analyses how, when and where Thatcher used pathos as a means of drawing out an emotional reaction as a way of seeking support. The chapter also provides illustrations of how, when and where Thatcher was more reliant on logos, and the use of evidence to construct her argument. Furthermore, the chapter identifies the issues and circumstances in which Thatcher would utilise the differing oratorical styles of deliberative (considered), judicial (reflective and forensic) and epideictic (drama and performance). It will argue that during interviews, conference presentations and set-piece speeches she would often perform in an authoritative manner in order to convince the audience of her arguments. However, the more judicial approach would be adopted in the Commons when deconstructing the policies of her opponents, although the message would remain the same. For example during the period of mass privatisations Thatcher justified her objectives by stating the success of private industry and the failure of state-owned enterprises. This chapter concludes by arguing that her performative style proved to be the most convincing because it fed into her reputation as a conviction politician that was proactively liberalising the economy and defending British interests abroad.

The conclusion argues that in Parliament, at Party Conference and in set-piece speeches, and in interviews and press conferences, Thatcher’s persona, rhetoric and oratory were integral to the policy agenda of Thatcherism. Through her communicative style she sought to persuade the Conservative Party internally, and externally the electorate, that there was no alternative to Thatcherism. Depending on the arena that she was operating in she would utilise different rhetorical devices and oratorical styles to suit the expectations of her audience. Moreover, she used her own self-assured belief in the values of neoliberal economics, the failure of her opponents to challenge her arguments in an equally compelling manner, and the combination of her conviction and the political circumstances of the time vis-à-vis the politics of crisis during the 1970s and into the 1980s to consolidate her justification for Thatcherism as the sole cure to the ‘British disease’. In so doing she has left an undeniable impact upon British party politics and transformed the communicative style of political debate.