This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/19/guardian-view-on-margaret-thatcher-papers-too-important-tax-break

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
The Guardian view on the Thatcher papers: too important to be saved by a tax break The Guardian view on the Thatcher papers: too important to be saved by a tax break
(7 months later)
It is 30 years since Margaret Thatcher was snubbed by her old university, Oxford, when, in a very public rebuff, it rejected a proposal for an honorary doctorate. The prime minister was mortified. Her reaction and the unexpected vulnerability it reveals is known because she recorded it in her private papers, and her biographer Charles Moore has seen it. So this week’s news, that her family has donated a tranche of her personal papers to the Churchill Archives Centre in return for £1m off their inheritance tax bill, is good for future historians. But it is also shocking.It is 30 years since Margaret Thatcher was snubbed by her old university, Oxford, when, in a very public rebuff, it rejected a proposal for an honorary doctorate. The prime minister was mortified. Her reaction and the unexpected vulnerability it reveals is known because she recorded it in her private papers, and her biographer Charles Moore has seen it. So this week’s news, that her family has donated a tranche of her personal papers to the Churchill Archives Centre in return for £1m off their inheritance tax bill, is good for future historians. But it is also shocking.
Lady Thatcher herself raised £5m to establish her foundation at Churchill. She did it so her papers could be held, together, for education, scholarship and research. It is not the first time that this arrangement, under the “acceptance in lieu” scheme that is more commonly used to set works of art of national significance against a tax bill, has been used. But it does raise important questions about when it is appropriate and where, in a public life, the boundary lies with the private. Most importantly, it is a forceful reminder of how careless we are becoming with our history. Lady Thatcher herself raised £5m to establish her foundation at Churchill. She did it so her papers could be held, together, for education, scholarship and research. It is not the first time that this arrangement, under the “acceptance in lieu” scheme that is more commonly used to set works of art of national significance against a tax bill, has been used. But it does raise important questions about when it is appropriate and where, in a public life, the boundary lies with the private. Most importantly, it is a forceful reminder of how careless we are becoming with our history.
The papers that have effectively been sold by the family to the state relate to public matters: they include her 17,000-word handwritten account composed a year after the successful conclusion of the Falklands war, and another personal memoir of the visit to Moscow in 1985 that led to the renewal of her relationship with Mikhail Gorbachev. These are not official documents of the kind that would automatically be sent to the Public Record Office at Kew, but nor are they entirely private, in the way, say, that the love letters between Winston and Clementine Churchill which were given to the Churchill archive, are private. But both are compelling evidence of a human story, the biographical warp and woof without which it would be impossible to make sense of history.The papers that have effectively been sold by the family to the state relate to public matters: they include her 17,000-word handwritten account composed a year after the successful conclusion of the Falklands war, and another personal memoir of the visit to Moscow in 1985 that led to the renewal of her relationship with Mikhail Gorbachev. These are not official documents of the kind that would automatically be sent to the Public Record Office at Kew, but nor are they entirely private, in the way, say, that the love letters between Winston and Clementine Churchill which were given to the Churchill archive, are private. But both are compelling evidence of a human story, the biographical warp and woof without which it would be impossible to make sense of history.
The Thatcher family – her legacy is divided between her two children and her grandchildren – is reported to have turned down a large offer from an American university. Yet it feels uncomfortably convenient that the sale was accepted on the watch of a Conservative government, just as her old private secretary, John Whittingdale, becomes secretary of state for culture, the department that oversees the acceptance in lieu scheme. It is true that the documents were independently assessed and, since the centre has no acquisition fund, had the family sold them on the open market, almost a fifth of Lady Thatcher’s papers would have been lost from a collection where totality is key. Nor is it the first time that the family of a public figure has sought to capitalise on them. In 1995, Churchill’s grandson Winston negotiated a £12.5m payout from the National Lottery for personal papers and even kept the copyright for his own estate. The Thatcher family – her legacy is divided between her two children and her grandchildren – is reported to have turned down a large offer from an American university. Yet it feels uncomfortably convenient that the sale was accepted on the watch of a Conservative government, just as her old private secretary, John Whittingdale, becomes secretary of state for culture, the department that oversees the acceptance in lieu scheme. It is true that the documents were independently assessed and, since the centre has no acquisition fund, had the family sold them on the open market, almost a fifth of Lady Thatcher’s papers would have been lost from a collection where totality is key. Nor is it the first time that the family of a public figure has sought to capitalise on them. In 1995, Churchill’s grandson Winston negotiated a £12.5m payout from the National Lottery for personal papers and even kept the copyright for his own estate.
It is time is to develop a more formal arrangement for the papers of public figures. The Churchill Archives Centre was established as a British version of a presidential library, and its proud claim is to have papers enough for five. The Bodleian Library in Oxford, the People’s History Museum in Salford and Warwick University all have considerable holdings of papers of important 20th century politicians. But Ernest Bevin’s archive, for example, is divided between Warwick and Churchill. Clement Attlee’s is at the Bodleian. The dispersal makes it difficult to gain a comprehensive sense of one individual’s life. But at least the papers are there.It is time is to develop a more formal arrangement for the papers of public figures. The Churchill Archives Centre was established as a British version of a presidential library, and its proud claim is to have papers enough for five. The Bodleian Library in Oxford, the People’s History Museum in Salford and Warwick University all have considerable holdings of papers of important 20th century politicians. But Ernest Bevin’s archive, for example, is divided between Warwick and Churchill. Clement Attlee’s is at the Bodleian. The dispersal makes it difficult to gain a comprehensive sense of one individual’s life. But at least the papers are there.
Much more worrying is the news that there is as yet no known plan for the papers of recent prime ministers such as Tony Blair or Gordon Brown, while box-loads of papers from the old Labour party headquarters have simply been destroyed. There is no formal system of keeping a record of electronic communications, partly because the inconvenience of freedom of information legislation is a deterrent that no one has properly addressed. David Cameron’s future biographers will have a much harder job than Lady Thatcher’s. We are in danger of wiping out history, of creating a new dark age, where the past can only be painstakingly reconstructed from indirect evidence. We need a new settlement to preserve and protect the evidence that shows how we got from there to here. Much more worrying is the news that there is as yet no known plan for the papers of recent prime ministers such as Tony Blair or Gordon Brown. There is no formal system of keeping a record of electronic communications, partly because the inconvenience of freedom of information legislation is a deterrent that no one has properly addressed. David Cameron’s future biographers will have a much harder job than Lady Thatcher’s. We are in danger of wiping out history, of creating a new dark age, where the past can only be painstakingly reconstructed from indirect evidence. We need a new settlement to preserve and protect the evidence that shows how we got from there to here.
• This article was amended on 22 December 2015. An earlier version said that “box-loads of papers from the old Labour party headquarters have simple been destroyed”. A Labour party spokesperson contacted us subsequently to tell us that this is not the case and that “official papers such as parliamentary Labour party minutes and National Executive Council papers, as well conference documents” are regularly sent to the People’s History Museum where they are held.