So how did all this work out in practice? Pretty well — as the British people recognised in three successive general elections. Not perfectly, of course. Perfection is not of this world. Indeed, one of the great strengths of Conservatism is that, in contrast to all the other “isms” that exist, it is the politics of imperfection. So where are we now, and what would Margaret Thatcher make of it?

It is safe to say that she would have been absolutely horrified by last May’s Conservative Party Manifesto (which, it has to be said, did not turn out to be a great success). Let me reproduce an extract from it:

We must reject the ideological templates provided by the socialist left and the libertarian right . . . Under the strong and stable leadership of Theresa May, there will be no ideological crusades. The government’s agenda will not be allowed to drift to the right . . . We do not believe in untrammelled free markets. We reject the cult of selfish individualism.

A more explicit rejection of, and travesty of, Thatcherism it would be hard to imagine.

Leaving aside the unequivocal fact that free markets not only proved themselves superior to other forms of economic organisation during the Thatcher era, which saved this country when it was on the brink of disaster, but have done so around the world throughout history, it is worth spending a little time on precisely why this travesty is so pernicious and so wrong.

It is true that the free market is based on self-interest (including, incidentally, the interests of one’s family). But we should not condemn self-interest. It is rightly and inescapably inherent in human nature. And government in a free society would be impossible without it.

As far back as the 18th century, Adam Smith demonstrated how the market economy channels self-interest into public benefit. As he famously wrote:

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but their self love.

And again:

Every individual . . . neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. He intends only his own gain, and he is . . . led as by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.