“After the storm, of a life lived in the heat of political controversy, there is a great calm”.
The excellent sermon given at the funeral yesterday of Baroness Thatcher, given by the Bishop of London at St. Paul’s Cathedral:
I was particularly pleased to hear the misinterpretation of Thatcher’s famous “there’s no such thing as society” quotation being so publicly corrected and presented in its fuller, Christian context by such a respected authority.
But indeed the whole sermon stands out as one of the best in recent memory, struck exactly the right note and was the high point of an exceptionally well-choreographed and well-executed ceremonial funeral.
A documentary is just starting on UK’s Channel 4 TV (Saturday 13th April, 7PM), entitled “Margaret: Death of a Revolutionary”.
My interest was piqued when I saw that Channel 4 was showing a documentary about Baroness Thatcher – their news channel is skewed so far to the left that it defies belief, so I was curious to see what they would have to say about Britain’s post-war saviour.
But it was the description of the programme in my Sky TV guide that really affronted me:
“Martin Durkin presents his radical thesis: that Margaret Thatcher was a working class revolutionary, and that she believed capitalism was in the interests of ordinary people, not the toffs.”
Everything wrong with the British left-wing encapsulated in one sentence.
Where to start?
Why is this a “radical thesis”? I think that we are supposed to take this line of nonsense as a piece of magnanimity from the left – that the holier-than-thou leftists among us are willing to grant that maybe Thatcher was (albeit misguidedly) trying to help the less fortunate in society, and not just the “toffs” (don’t get me started on that word) that we all assume were the only people she really cared about.
What nonsense.
Of course Thatcher believed that capitalism was in the interests of the ordinary people. Because it is. This isn’t a “radical thesis”. The ignorant left may have accepted the nonsensical trope that capitalism benefits only the wealthy Monopoly-men style captains of industry and the “toffs”, but the rest of us sure haven’t.
We of sound mind know that capitalism (as opposed to corporatism, which is entirely different, and which Thatcher promoted no more than any other British politician) inevitably helps the “ordinary people”.
And did the person who wrote the programme description lose their mind? Who does he think the Right-to-Buy scheme benefited? The “toffs” weren’t the ones living in state-owned council housing, who were suddenly given the opportunity to buy their houses and move into the ranks of the middle class. Who did the deregulation and privatisation of failing state-owned industries benefit? Yes, wealthy people who had money sloshing around and could afford to snap up shares did well, but so did many middle-class people, as did the whole population who no longer had to deal with fuel crises and substandard products.
Yes, of course Margaret Thatcher believed that capitalism benefits “ordinary people”. Because it does. Nationalised, state-owned industries sure didn’t benefit us. Three day working weeks didn’t benefit us. Power cuts, garbage piling up, dead bodies laying unburied, industrial unrest, the country being run by the unions, none of these things benefited us.
And Channel 4 has the nerve to present their quirky notion that maybe Thatcher had the interests of “ordinary people” at heart as a radical thesis. That in fact perhaps Margaret Thatcher, the grocer’s daughter from Grantham, wasn’t actually in the pocket of the landed gentry and the “toffs” after all.
The public and media reaction to the recent death of Margaret Thatcher has played out in exactly the way that I and probably everyone else in the nation had been predicting for the past decade.
The former prime minister was lionised in the right-wing press, and indeed by myself, as someone who quite literally saved the country, halting and then dramatically reversing what was considered by many to be a slow and inevitable national decline.
She was remembered as a “divisive” leader by the left-leaning media, some of whom grudgingly acknowledged the necessity of many of the economic policies which Thatcher brought about, while others chose to set reality aside and focus exclusively on the negative aspects of her time in office.
And finally, of course, everyone got huffy with everyone else for not responding to Baroness Thatcher’s death by their own personal definition of the “appropriate” way.
Of course it is fitting that we recognise and remind people of the enormous positive contribution – the most significant of any post war politician – that Thatcher made to the United Kingdom, and to the world. But we would be doing ourselves an intellectual injustice, and helping to ensure that the next visionary British conservative leader (whoever he or she may be) will also be labelled as “divisive” and hated by many, if we do not understand the lingering bitterness which led to speeches such as this one, made by the Labour Member of Parliament for Hampstead & Kilburn (London), my local MP Glenda Jackson:
Harsh and bitter words, borne of harsh and bitter experiences. But were the people who lost and suffered the most from 1979-1990 really let down by the prime minister, or by someone or something else?
I would argue that it was not the prime minister herself who failed Thatcherism’s biggest losers, but by the long line of political leaders in Britain heading back to the end of the Second World War and the subsequent post-war settlement, which brought about the nationalisation of industry and the freedom from competition that allowed so much of the British economy to atrophy and wither over time, gradually becoming less and less sustainable and competitive with each passing year, until only the harsh but necessary medicine of Thatcherism was able to save the country, at a much higher social cost than might otherwise have been the case.
We can see an excellent modern-day example of this exact argument being made by the highly popular Republican governor of the state of New Jersey, Chris Christie:
Replace the phrase “unfunded pension obligations” with “state-owned industries” in this speech and you have an eloquent defence of Thatcherism that you can deliver in a single minute. Christie explains that he understands the anger and frustration of the people in his state who are materially losing out in terms of stagnating wages for public sector jobs, trimmed pensions for retired state workers, and a host of other measures that the governor considered harsh but necessary in order to put New Jersey on a sound and sustainable financial footing, but that his policies are necessary because none of his predecessors had the political courage or common decency to level with the electorate about the problems that lay ahead, and the changes and sacrifices that would have to be made.
In Britain, those who lost out the most tended to work in inefficient, state-owned industries such as coal mining or car production, where Britain simply did not have a competitive advantage. They had effectively been lied to, and shielded from competition, by nearly all of the political leaders in Britain since the end of the Second World War. Just as generations of New Jersey politicians had promised their public sector workers generous pension and benefit entitlements that they knew would become unsustainable over time, so generations of British politicians promised the population here that heavy industry, state-owned monopolies and industrial relations tilted in favour of union bosses were sustainable in the long-term.
Could and should more have been done to support people who lost their livelihoods as the Thatcher reforms took effect across the country. Absolutely. And we need to ensure that when a future conservative leader makes the next set of necessary reforms (the urgent rationalisation and shrinking of the public sector in Britain) that adequate support is given to people in terms of new job placement and new skills training. There are parts of the United Kingdom where over 50% of employment comes from the public sector, a ridiculously high number – people busily providing and receiving government services to and from each other, and only half of the workforce engaged in private sector activities that generate value and wealth. But as we move away from this failed model, it is not morally acceptable, or politically viable, to rationalise the public sector without providing the necessary transitional support. We can, for example, have no more communities decimated – though the British public must also play their part by increasing our notoriously low labour flexibility and being willing to relocate for work.
Margaret Thatcher achieved much during her time in office. Lord knows that in today’s age of focus groups, granular polling of every single issue and the obsession with following public opinion, we need a leader who is a true conviction politician, and who persuades people to their cause rather than slavishly seeking positive headlines in The Sun or The Daily Mail.
But while conservatives such as myself celebrate the extraordinary legacy of Margaret Thatcher, we need to be sure that we formulate and advocate policies that avoid her pitfalls as well as emulate her great victories.
Semi-Partisan Politics 