Skip to main content

Giving Mrs Thatcher her dues?

I didn't want to write about Mrs Thatcher at this time. I would rather her family and friends were left to mourn in peace, and indeed to celebrate a remarkable life. She was a woman of great accomplishments.

I am sick and tired of the endless discussion on radio and television and in the newspapers about whether it is fitting to criticise Mrs Thatcher at this time. I doubt whether many would wish to be disrespectful but for the fact that so many Tories, and particularly Thatcherites are making political statements about her achievements, when for so many the feelings about what she did are still raw. They should understand that opinion was always deeply divided about her premiership. They should not feign surprise that it is still so today. They should also not be surprised that people who were and are still angry about her period of office should want to express it. Judgement is not one-sided. History teaches us different lessons.

I do not approve of the demonstrations at this time; but nor do I approve of some of the ludicrous claims being made about her achievements; and nor do I approve of the near-state funeral she is being given with full military honours. It is no disrespect to her to say that. It is a criticism not of her. It is a concern that such a funeral is disproportionate and in large part politically motivated.

If her supporters wish to make  claims for her successes, and I do not doubt that there were some considerable achievements; it is equally the case that by the time she was removed by her own party from the premiership, she had created mass unemployment, had overseen a rapid increase in industrial decline and a fractured society that was much more unequal than the one she had inherited.

Poverty, particularly child poverty had increased, whole communities had been thrown on the scrap heap and all her henchmen could suggest was that they got 'on their bikes' to find work. Hers was a callous and dispiriting government. The Tory party became, in the words of Mr David Cameron a 'nasty party'. She came to office cynically citing the prayer of St Francis of Assisi , yet she left office with a more divided and fractured nation, and in the end it was her own party who got rid of her.

Mrs Thatcher was a great lady. She was the first British woman prime minister. Clement Attlee wasn't given a near state funeral, and his government set about building society and the welfare state. His was an achievement that influenced the direction of British politics for three decades. But for all his undoubted achievements at healing Britain and creating the NHS, he did not get the disproportionate funeral or adulation given to Mrs Thatcher.

Mrs Thatcher built nothing, let alone society; she considered that society didn't exist. Her view of society was that it was little other than an aggregate of self interested (and indeed, selfish) individuals. There was she said 'no such thing as society'. she set about destroying the very concept of society, and it is no wonder therefore that she left the social fabric of our society in tatters. It is time we heard less from the Tory press and her supporters. If they wish the family to be left to mourn in peace, then I would suggest the less we hear from them the better.


It is not simply what is achieved that matters in judgement. It is also the manner in which things are done. Ends alone should not be the only consideration. As politicians get more powerful, it is this they tend to forget. Their conviction that they are right becomes all persuasive, and others around them stop telling them otherwise. And, for this reason, those around them are as culpable for that which goes wrong.

The frustration of those in Mrs Thatcher's government was always evident. They walked out of the cabinet. It was evident in the beginning of her downfall. The resignation of her longest serving minister, Sir Geoffrey Howe, was said to have come as a great surprise to her. His resignation speech was devastating. Whilst he had major disagreement over policies, it was her style of leadership that drove him over the edge.

This is the problem of believing what others and the media say about you. Mrs Thatcher as the 'iron lady' became locked into a style of leadership. The 'no U-turn' approach is all too familiar. You turn if you want to, the lady's not for turning was the root of her downfall.

Mrs Thatcher has earned her place in history. But the manner of her doing things will be left for historians to judge; and a realistic judgement won't be made until her supporters and her detractors have left the scene.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

A time for every purpose

All life moves. Or, more precisely, all life moves purposefully.  This is true even for trees and plants.  Movement is essential for maintaining life.  Animals migrate; plants disperse.  Some form of migration is an ingredient of all life.  For many organisms, it is a key function of reproduction.  We don't reproduce merely to create a new organism, but also to disperse the population - finding new fertile ground, or resources. Reproduction is a form of migration. Reproduction isn't merely to replicate. Reproduction produces change and diversity.  While we may have strong resemblences in families, we also have differences.  Creating a difference is how evolution works.  In this sense, nature is a continuous exploratory process, finding what works best.  Nature senses change and responds.  Some of this is immediate and physiological or behavioural; some of it is over generations.  If we look at a forest over long periods of time, we would see that it shifts. There is a movement

A weaver's tail - the harvest mouse

Living in the grass is a tiny mouse: the tiny harvest mouse, with a wonderful scientific name that sounds like the title of a Charles Dickens Novel,  Micromys minutus.   It is the only British mammal with a prehensile tail. It uses its tail to hold on to the slender grass stems, at the tops of which it builds a nest. Photo: Nick Fewing These tiny mammals (just around 5 cm long) build a spherical nest of tightly woven grass at the top of tall grasses, in which the female will give birth to about six young.  In the fields, we see cows and horses brushing away flies with their tails; often they will stand side-by-side and end-to-end, and help each other.  Two tails are better than one!  In nature, tails are put to good use.  Just as a tight-rope walker uses his pole for balance, so for some species, a tail provides balance. When running, a squirrel uses its tail as a counterbalance to help the squirrel steer and turn quickly, and the tail is used aerodynamically in flight.  But many anima