The Thatcher Divide

                                                            The Thatcher Divide

On the eighth of April 2013 Margaret Thatcher died. Barely had the news flown off the stands  than a whole controversy was created. Questions focussed on the legacy she would leave and how history would view her time in power.

The legacy she made in Britain is actually hard to assess. In some ways she is credited with reinventing the greatness of Britain and making Britain again an influential power. This however is open to interpretation.

At work today I asked the question as to what my colleagues thought.

“It was so long ago” said one “I cannot really have an opinion. “

Certainly in the end there was less national mourning however there is quite a legacy of polarization which reflects to some extent Britain’s own political divides.  To the right she was a cherished icon, a lady who made the country great again. The myth of the “Iron Lady” who took on the unions gained some credence. The prime minister who fought the Falklands war and won three elections is somebody to celebrate.

To the left she is symbol of everything that is wrong in Britain today. Her legacy was divisive and served merely to entrench the privileges of the rich while her policies of deregulation contributed directly to the banking crisis. She is considered socially divisive to the extent that street parties were organized to celebrate her demise. Stories about a party to celebrate her death were common knowledge in alternative circles years ago. To many people she was a hated figure!

How she will be remembered is very much dependent on the standpoint of the viewer and among huge sections of the British population the memories are not so fond. There are memories of the destruction of the manufacturing base of the country. This of course is a decision that is coming back to haunt us and her government along with almost all the succeeding governments put their faith in the service industries to bring future prosperity. The banking crash has of course now put paid to that.

One of the features often remarked on is the youth of a lot of the protesters who came out to hold street parties to celebrate her death. Many of those interviewed by the press could not have been more than about two years old at the time she left office. However, soon delegations of miners whose towns were destroyed by her policies are likely to be joining in these protests. However there is a feeling that her rule took place over twenty years ago. To a lot of the generation who were around at that time there is little wish to celebrate, only to forget her.  While they do not like her legacy they could just not really be bothered to hold street parties as they have enough trouble sorting out their own lives.

In terms of living under her rule I can remember it well. She certainly had a talent for manipulating the tides of public opinion and I would certainly say it was true that half the country loved her and half hated her. I can still remember the day when the news came out. It was a strange feeling to see people almost strolling around like headless chickens. In some ways the appeal was that of a strong woman to save us! The feelings aroused were different in that some were very enthusiastic about her demise. Others complained she had had a bad time because she was a woman.

On the television screens her presence seemed often distant. Many people described her as prissy and not a person who cared about the people she represented. That was a view shared by quite a few of her party supporters as well. As with all politicians, when at first breakneck growth built on credit came she was lionized. When the recession started she was demonized. The moment it became obvious that her policies were not working the calls for her to resign became more and more strident. Until they reached the final point and she was deposed by her own party