The sheer mention of Margaret Thatcher’s name evokes intense and partisan responses; she is viewed either as an icon and hero, or a toxic and bitter enemy. Such is her divisive legacy, that there is very rarely a middle ground viewpoint about her. Until recently, I confess that I was not well informed enough about her; I would often criticise her without much evidence. Having now addressed that issue, and having recently viewed the film The Iron Lady, I will do my best to offer an evaluation of her from my own viewpoint.
Prior to viewing The Iron Lady, it was my hope that the film would neither demonise nor praise her. When it comes to cinema, I don’t feel that bias is a wise element. If the film praised her too much, a vicious backlash on the Left would emerge; if it demonised her, a similar response would be met from the Right. What the film successfully did was to focus on the person herself, rather than on concrete policies and historical facts. I believe it’s fair to say that whatever people may think of her, the facts are there to be seen; she was the first (and to date only) female Prime Minister, and she rose from relatively humble beginnings as a grocer’s daughter to lead the Conservative Party to three General Election victories. Furthermore, she did this as a female in a heavily male dominated arena. The film successfully captures this against-the-odds feat, and it celebrates the woman herself and her strong and stoical demeanour rather than placing her on a political pedestal.
As a Social Democrat, I could never subscribe to Thatcherite policies. The mixed economy was all but disintegrated with the rapid privatisation of major utilities. Contrary to the general belief that mass privatisation was clamoured for by a substantial majority, Simon Jenkins notes in his book Thatcher and sons that general indicators and opinion polls at the time suggest the opposite. In terms of legacy, any talk of nationalisation now is likely to be dismissed out of hand as some sort of incompetent, leftists notion. Indeed, nationalisations in recent times have only really resulted from emergencies, such as the worldwide financial crisis from 2007-2010 (Northern Rock, one of the nationalised banks, has since been sold). In his autobiography, Tony Blair stated that he did not want to use resources to renationalise British Rail, despite a manifesto pledge; John Major had privatised British Rail in a widely unpopular (and in hindsight unsuccessful) move, essentially carrying on a Thatcherite tradition. Whether it could work in the national interest or not, Thatcherism has meant that nationalisation is essentially off the agenda for generations to come.
Furthermore, Thatcher bitterly divided a nation. Proving its unbiased credentials, The Iron Lady presents this in an often graphic manner. The sight of thousands of people taking to the streets in protest, along with violent destruction and discord, is as evocative today as it was in the 1980s. Her economic policies have destroyed the Tories in Scotland for years to come. Prominent members of the Cabinet, such as Michael Heseltine, strongly opposed Thatcher’s plans for introducing a poll tax (Community Charge), along with vast swathes of the Conservative Party, yet she was adamant in bringing it in. A hugely regressive tax, with the poor bearing far more of the burden than the rich, resulted in yet more mass demonstrations, and the tax was swiftly removed once John Major replaced Thatcher as leader.
As I have touched upon at times in this blog, I do believe in pluralism, and therefore I think it’s only fair to give credit where credit is due. Thatcher drastically reduced the income tax burden, an essential measure; the top rate of tax was as high as 80% when she took office. Furthermore (and this will depend on how you view this topic), she curtailed the power of the trade unions. I am not against trade unions; they are at their best when they protect the rights of the worker, and for too long they struggled in the late 19th and early 20th century to have the freedom to express and legislate their rights, especially under brutal oppression in the USA. However, at times the unions had far too much power in the UK, bringing industry to a standstill in times such as ‘The Winter of Discontent’ and the three day working week. Previous governments, especially the Ted Heath administration, had been feeble and weak in dealing with strikes. Thatcher stood firm over closed shops and strikes before ballots, and greatly diminished the trade unions’ power to hold a government to ransom.
Furthermore, ownership greatly increased under her tenure. People were able to buy their council houses for the first time, although what is often overlooked is that this meant little to those who could not afford to do so. Victory in the Falklands War vastly increased British patriotism and morale, although it is yet another divisive legacy. Such a victory essential crushed a missed opportunity for the SDP-Liberal alliance, who had approval ratings as high as 50% prior to the victory, something which I always view with a sombre attitude! Her leadership credentials cannot be denied, with the film aiding the portrayal of a strong and determined woman.
For all these attributes, I don’t think I can ever accept the notion that unemployment is a necessary measure for reducing inflation, something which Thatcher readily promoted. Unemployment peaked at well over three million in her premiership, with fairness and compassion severely lacking; it emerged recently that Thatcher had been urged by Geoffrey Howe to “abandon Liverpool”, and to not waste resources there. I will hastily add that Thatcher did not concur with this, but such a comment highlights the prevalent attitude of this era. I talk of pluralism, yet Thatcher (for all her leadership qualities) was consistently abrasive with her colleagues, and had no interest in seeking a consensus viewpoint. Such an approach alienated her from many elements of the Conservative Party, with Geoffrey Howe’s resignation (and damning verdict in his speech) in 1990 an indicator. In The Iron Lady, this is painfully portrayed in a cabinet scene where Thatcher is merciless in her criticism of Howe’s seemingly elementary mistakes. Perhaps because of this approach, along with sliding approval ratings, prominent figures such as Michael Heseltine launched challenges to her leadership. With not enough votes on the first ballot to secure an overall victory*, Thatcher resigned as Prime Minister.
*Ironically, for all of their trenchant opposition to electoral reform, the Conservative Party use an Alternative Vote system to elect their leaders!
To conclude, evaluating Margaret Thatcher’s legacy is a good way to surmise. From 1945 until Thatcher’s reign, there was an economic post-war consensus, which revolved around state planning and significant intervention into the economy. Thatcher bequeathed another consensus; Thatcherism is currently viewed as almost totally irreversible. New Labour accepted most of Thatcherism, and their time in office was essentially Thatcherism ‘with a human face’. As a Social Democrat I will always view this negatively, as I have faith in a mixed economy when properly managed. However, such is Thatcher’s legacy that the seemingly permanent nature of Thatcherism will be viewed by many as a good thing. From a Progressive standpoint, the nature of the First Past the Post electoral system overlooks the statistic that more people voted against Thatcher than for her; the vote was split between Labour and the Liberal Democrats. I agree that this argument can be overused and applied to most things, but I believe such an argument hopefully highlights that there is a strong Progressive contingent in the UK as well as a Thatcherite contingent.
I believe that Thatcher was a great woman, even if I don’t view her policies favourably. I’m pleased that The Iron Lady focuses on the achievements of a female individual against a heavily male orientated business, a feat that is often overlooked due to divisions over her. I cannot praise her for permanently changing Britain, as this had negative consequences socially, but I can praise her for her strong leadership qualities. She made many necessary reforms (Income tax, the trade unions) as well as many unnecessary reforms (the poll tax, denationalisation in some cases). The Iron Lady offers a poignant evaluation of her life, taking the emphasis away from some of her political aspects, something which, as stated, I had hoped for prior to watching the film. When talking about Thatcher, I do despair at the mass hysteria over her on both sides of the fence; a measured response is key. As a Social Democrat, do I like what Thatcher did, and how she did it? No will always be the answer. Do I respect some of the decisions she took, and her rise to power? Yes will always be the answer.
-Ben
