Published on 25 Jan 2016

Cecil Parkinson – once groomed as Thatcher’s successor

Here’s the piece of paper that tells you how high in Margaret Thatcher’s estimation Cecil Parkinson had risen by 1983. In the right hand column she has pencilled “CP” in, the man who oversaw her General Election campaign in 1983, as the next Foreign Secretary. Cecil Parkinson’s political ally Nicholas Ridley said Mrs Thatcher was grooming him as her successor.

IMG_3708

 

Instead, the day after the 1983 General Election, Mrs Thatcher showed him the letter she had received from his mistress’s father. She made Cecil Parkinson Trade and Industry Secretary instead but the pressure to resign over the child he’d had by Sarah Keays soon became too great.

The 1990 matricide when the Tory Cabinet turned on Margaret Thatcher was a defining moment for Tories not just because she was toppled, but because individuals like Cecil Parkinson continued to believe she was wrongly dispensed with, there had been a conspiracy that included supposed political allies in its midst and it should never have happened.

True believers like Cecil Parkinson continued to believe (I interviewed him on the subject two years ago) that Margaret Thatcher could’ve won the leadership battle even after Michael Heseltine had wounded her. You can see his contribution to that debate in this piece broadcast just after Margaret Thatcher’s death and feel how red hot the issue still was for the participants 14 years after the events.

cp

Tweets by @garygibbonblog

5 reader comments

  1. captain krill says:

    his missus needs to be told of the MISERY his government inflicted on others

    1. More Silent Majority says:

      …a lot less than following labour governments inflicted on us.

      1. Phillythekid says:

        Let’s not forget that Thatcher once admitted that she considered Tony Blair and New Labour as her greatest achievement.
        That was not truly Labour. That was Tory moles continuing Thatchers legacy.
        Cameron blaming Labour for all the current troubles is disingenuous, at best.

  2. L. FURNELL says:

    A question for the safety of submarines as is reported an armed missile ship was harassed with electronic warfare attacks that disabled an American guided missile ship by a pair or Russian bombers in Russian dominated waters in recent years.
    Russia is developing under water nuclear drones for attacks on seaboard military and economic and submarine warfare targets of cold war mentality.
    Will our new submarines on order be able to survive such an attack and also when sea water is used for drinking water and will the hulls of our new submarine investment to secure future peace be misguided because of when these Russian weapons become operational which will be before any of our new proposed submarines become operational. The investment does not seem adequate for the future technolodgy being tested at the moment

  3. Alan says:

    Either the political cupboard is empty or full of DA notices.

Comments are closed.