It’s every history teacher’s favourite anecdote: when James Callaghan’s 1979 government called a vote of no confidence, the Labour party fell into a panic. There are reports of wheeling in sick MPs on stretchers so that they could vote against the dissolution of the current government. One MP – Sir Alfred Broughton – was on his deathbed, and despite insisting that he vote, he was kept out of the House for fear that this act would be his last.
The results? Labour won just one vote less than the Conservatives. Had Broughton voted, it’s possible that Labour could have clung on for another couple of years. Had Labour managed to achieve this, Thatcher’s 11 year domination most likely would never have happened. Most of her colleagues initially doubted her ability as leader and therefore if she had lost out to Callaghan in the ballots, this incredibly divisive figure would never have become the household name that she is today.
This anecdote raises one very profound question: what would our country look like today without Thatcher’s influence? The legacy that she has left behind implies that everything changed under her rule. Arguably Britain was dragged out from the dark days of consensus and thrown into a political stalemate, for every step forwards there was one step back. Was the political revolution a myth? Was she Britain’s first punk PM or a faker with stick-on piercings?
Thatcher is best known for what she changed, and she changed a lot: relations with the miners, privatisation and Britain’s immigration policy, for starters. In fact, Farage’s bitterness about our open door immigration policy can be traced right back to Thatcher. The commonly held belief by those who witnessed her government first-hand is that without her, we would have fallen into a socialist, unionist cesspit, riddled with inefficiency as leaders called illegal strikes at the drop of a hat.
Indeed, some things did change dramatically during her time as Prime Minister. She attempted to revolutionise Britain’s dying economy by prioritising tackling inflation at the expense of unemployment. In some respects she was successful, but her failed policy of monetarism led her to adopt a supply-side economic policy which is credited not only to the burgeoning entrepreneurial spirit of the times, but to the greedy consumerist attitude of modern day Britain. Thatcher told people that they too could work their way up from humble beginnings and make a success of themselves. However, Thatcher cannot be wholly credited for this philosophy; her Labour predecessors had debated the idea implemented by her of allowing the aspirational working class to buy council houses for a cheaper rate. Unfortunately, Labour abandoned the idea, letting Thatcher grab a further hold on the electorate and take credit for it.
Her economic policies lived on, though perhaps not for the better. Her deregulation of the City of London in 1986 allowed the financial sector to grow exponentially, but of course, as with anything, there is a point where extreme growth leads to extreme consequences. This point came in the form of the 2008 crash, the banks took full advantage of their newfound freedom and began doling out money as if it were sweets. A huge credit bubble grew, and then burst. Thus Thatcher’s presence was still felt in the economic sector, unfortunately just for all of the wrong reasons. Her neoliberalism appeared revolutionary; unfortunately it was a Bolshevik-esque one – replacing one form of destructive government for another.
But she does deserve credit for the way in which she utterly destroyed the trade unions. It’s a fact that the unions during the 70s and 80s had more power and influence than they had before the days of the General Strike. Scargill had a vendetta against Thatcher and the feeling was mutual. Thatcher was the kind of Prime Minister who worked best during a crisis, and her pragmatism during the Miner’s Strike meant that she remained in favour clung on for another term. Unfortunately, she did not simply destroy the NUM but the unions as a whole; union membership is relatively humble nowadays, with it being increasingly difficult to strike.
Despite her right-wing views, she was reasonable enough to leave the welfare state intact (and in so doing, she created a larger dependency culture by ensuring that state benefits were increasingly subject to means testing). It can be said that Labour’s legacy lives on more than hers in that the welfare state has remained relatively unchanged since it was established. Thatcher considered the privatisation of healthcare but understood the popularity of Labour’s reforms and therefore deigned to keep it intact. Her privatisation did set her apart from her predecessors but it is argued that it was taken too far – some even stated that they wouldn’t be surprised if she privatised oxygen.
Ultimately, Thatcher did leave behind a legacy, but not one that is wholly her own. She retained Labour’s policies, adopted ones they had rejected, retained the traditional relationship between Britain and the US (even adopting the same economic model) and pushing Britain further into the EU. The reluctance to take responsibility for high unemployment, destruction of the unions and a pathetic attempt at a colonial war were all her own. Her time in office can be described as a political stalemate, for every problem that she solved, she caused another. It’s argued that had she departed within her 10th year, she would not be the divisive figure that she is today, as the social consequences of her economic policies would not still affect us almost 25 years after her departure. What will be said – despite her formidable presence at the head of government during the 80s – is that in actual fact, she is undeserving of her reputation as the most controversial figure in modern British politics.
Words by Beth Chaplow