The Controversial History of Margaret Thatcher

The Crown and the PM

I often seem to find inspiration for my next post in what I'm currently watching on TV. Maybe it's because I'm drawn to historical dramas and documentaries that--more often than not--tell very relevant stories that seem markedly similar to current events. As human nature has stayed pretty consistent throughout our time here on earth, that fact should not surprise me or anyone else.

The award-winning Netflix series The Crown is my latest guilty pleasure. Knowing that these series can and do take liberties with events and historical figures, I have still been caught up in the portrayal of the main players, one of whom is Margaret Thatcher. The most striking aspects of Gillian Anderson's depiction of this famous British PM are her conviction and her coldness. Throughout her time on screen, Thatcher is shown as unquestioning of her policies and impervious to any appeals for mercy or compromise. Frankly, I found her character downright repulsive.

Image Credit: CBS8

Reminding myself that I was watching a fictionalized version of history, I wondered what Thatcher was really like. Was she the heartless politician the series portrayed, or was this merely a script written by one of her many detractors?

A Polarizing Figure

People that remember and/or have studied Margaret Thatcher seem to fall into one of two extreme camps: love or hate. I have found rapturous eulogies to her memory, such as this excerpt taken from John O'Sullivan's 2008 speech at Hillsdale College when her statue was added to the school's "Liberty Walk":

We couldn’t have implemented those ideas of freedom without her courage, leadership, stamina, and commitment to those same ideas. So it is fitting that Hillsdale College should be erecting a statue to Lady Thatcher—you were allied with her in the same cause of freedom long before she became a personal friend of the college.

In general, Thatcher’s British economy, like Reagan’s revived U.S. economy, was characterized by change, profitability, growth, the better allocation of resources (including labor), and the emergence of new industries—indeed of an entirely new economy—based on the information revolution. . . . Allied with these reforms was the spread of capital ownership. . . . There was a social side to this economic liberalization, too. And this was more significant in Britain than in the U.S., which has long had a strong enterprise culture under governments of both parties.

A bringer of hope and a messenger of freedom, Margaret Thatcher would be at home at Hillsdale College as much as her statue will undoubtedly be.

Another, not so complimentary commentary, was written by Dan Stewart in The Week:

Thatcher's decade of power emboldened us, corporatized us, and divided us. She left as many poor and bitter as she did wealthy and self-satisfied, and neither group would forget it. Although she insisted there was "no such thing as society," Thatcher's rule thoroughly dredged the tributaries of Britain's class system.

And yet another, from writer Hugo Young in The Guardian:

The first is what changed in the temper of Britain and the British. What happened at the hands of this woman's indifference to sentiment and good sense in the early 1980s brought unnecessary calamity to the lives of several million people who lost their jobs. It led to riots that nobody needed. More insidiously, it fathered a mood of tolerated harshness. Materialistic individualism was blessed as a virtue, the driver of national success. Everything was justified as long as it made money – and this, too, is still with us.

Survey Says

Professional writers and speakers can have strong biases and opinions though, so what about the rest of us? In particular, how does the average British citizen feel about "the Iron Lady" nowadays, more than 30 years after her retreat from the political stage?

In 2019, researchers at the University of Derby commissioned BMG Research to run a survey asking 5,781 Brits how much they agreed with statements about Thatcher, such as whether she had made the country great again, if the changes she implemented have ensured a brighter future for all, if her government decreased the quality of life for ordinary people, and if she only looked out for the interests of the rich.

The survey found that at the time, both younger (aged up to 44) and older (aged above 65) people tended to be those who had a more positive view of the prime minister. The most consistently anti-Thatcherite group were those aged 45-64. Thatcher served as PM from 1979 - 1990, making the ages of these detractors from 5 - 24 when she took office and 16 - 35 when she left. Apparently, her policies had a memorably negative affect on young people during her tenure, while older adults remember her more positively, reinforcing the polarizing affect she consistently produces.

Thatcherism

What made this lady's policies so controversial? Perhaps it was the unique blend of neo-liberal economic policies with strict Methodist morality, which appealed to those who thrived in this survival-of-the-fittest environment yet left many Brits behind in the quest for greater prosperity. The resulting set of policies was so distinctive that they earned their own designation: Thatcherism.

Thatcherism was all about promoting neoliberal economic policies, which meant cutting back on industry regulations, selling off state-owned companies, and slashing public spending. Thatcher's government went on a privatization spree, selling off many state-run businesses like British Telecom, British Gas, and British Airways. The goal was to get the government out of the economy and boost competition, which supporters thought would lead to more efficiency and innovation.

Besides the economic changes, Thatcherism had its own set of social policies. Thatcher pushed the idea of personal responsibility and self-reliance, often backing policies that encouraged people to buy their own homes and start their own businesses. This approach resonated with a lot of people who wanted to better their financial situations through hard work and initiative.

Thatcherism also upended the welfare state. Her government worked hard to limit the power of trade unions, which they saw as too powerful and a barrier to economic progress. They passed laws to cut back on union activities, which led to fewer union members and shifted the power dynamics in labor relations.

On the international front, Thatcherism was linked with strong nationalism and a tough anti-communist stance during the Cold War. Thatcher's foreign policy was closely aligned with the United States, especially when Ronald Reagan was president, and her government took a hard stance against the Soviet Union. This alignment boosted national pride and reinforced her image as a strong leader.

Image Credit: The Forward

Critics of Thatcherism, however, say these policies led to more inequality and social division since the economic growth tended to benefit the already wealthy. The rise in unemployment during her early years and the decline of traditional industries in places like North England and Wales led to a lot of social unrest and protests.

In a letter to The Guardian concerning Thatcher's legacy, David Redshaw has this to say about her legacy:

The only entrepreneurial activity Thatcher let loose was in the late 1980s when, having devastated the northern industries, she and Nigel Lawson devised a way of kickstarting the economy by deregulating the financial sector and offering people criminally stupid amounts of credit–a gambit that predictably went pop in 1990 and contributed to her demise.

In his excellent piece about Margaret Thatcher’s ongoing influence, Andy Beckett has perhaps overlooked her most heinous sin. Her government, to the horror of Harold Macmillan, used the proceeds of privatization not to invest in infrastructure or other capital projects but to fritter away on tax cuts and giving an illusion of an economic miracle.

Now instead, the Tories are building up massive public debts, in effect stealing from future taxpayers. It’s no surprise that we boomers are often despised for our lucky lives. In the 1980s, thanks to Thatcher and her acolytes, we stole from previous generations; the public companies we sold had been built up using money from millions of customers and taxpayers. Now we are in effect doing it to generations younger than ours.

Besides the economic gaps, the cultural and social impacts of neoliberal policies are hard to ignore. By emphasizing individualism and competition, the values of British society have shifted to often define success in strictly monetary terms. This change has weakened community bonds and social unity. Many critics say this mindset has fueled social tensions, as people struggle with feelings of inadequacy and disconnection in a world that puts wealth above well-being.

The influence of neoliberalism has gone beyond just the economy, shaping political discussions and public policies, too. With a focus on market solutions, the government's role in tackling social issues has shrunk, leading to less investment in areas like affordable housing, education, and social safety nets. This neglect has led to deepened inequalities, making it harder for disadvantaged groups to better their situations.

Image Credit: The BBC

The Heart of the Matter

In reading the many commentaries written about her, I am struck both by Thatcher's worthy desire to reshape Britain into a wealthier, self-reliant nation while simultaneously maintaining a harsh and unsympathetic attitude toward the people she was elected to serve. While I admire her strength, it seems that she missed a most important point: that when forming economic policy, you are ultimately not talking about numbers, but about people. This seems to be the great downfall of Margaret Thatcher and the thing that makes her so controversial. In the pursuit of a greater Britain, she forgot about the ordinary British people.

Thatcher wanted Britain to be a dynamic, competitive economy based on free-market ideas. She thought that by reducing the state's role in the economy, boosting entrepreneurship, and promoting privatization, she could make the nation more prosperous. Her government rolled out changes that deregulated industries, lowered taxes, and cut government spending. These moves were meant to spark economic growth and attract investment, aiming to turn Britain into a global financial powerhouse.

But while her policies did boost certain sectors, they also widened social inequality and left many communities struggling. The focus on creating wealth often overshadowed the need to support the most vulnerable. As a result, her time in office saw significant social upheaval, protests, and a growing divide between different socioeconomic groups. The results don't sound very different from what we have experienced here in the US over the past few decades, and it is not a coincidence that both countries have seen similar economic trajectories since the Thatcher-Reagan era.

Ultimately, Thatcher's single-minded determination made her turn a deaf ear to counsel that could have prevented the suffering of many people. Her pride in her ability to raise herself up made her despise those who could not do the same for themselves. Her Methodist background should have taught her a different way of dealing with people. Her study of economics should have revealed that the pursuit of mutuality—which creates a better world for everyone—should have been her main economic focus.

Unfortunately, these lessons did not seem to make an impression on her, and the negative part of the legacy she left the United Kingdom is still with them today. Our hope is that the UK (and the US) will, instead, pursue the kind of economic policies that we advocate, which have been proven time and time again to bring prosperity to all. We will continue to work to realize that hope and invite you to actively join us in that work by advocating the same.

Fix Capitalism. Fix the American Dream.

Our vision is to benefit society by transforming capitalism's current core ethic of 'maximize shareholder value' to the better core ethic of 'optimize mutual value.' We achieve our vision by impacting learning, opinion, beliefs, and policy. -Institute for Better Capitalism, Inc.

Invite Us to Speak

⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Our Amazon number 1 new release: Unleash more with Better Capitalism: Jesus, Adam Smith, Ayn Rand, & MLK Jr. on Moving from Plantation to Partnership Economics.

"This book merits close, sustained attention as a compelling move beyond both careless thinking and easy ideology."—Walter Brueggemann, Columbia Theological Seminary

"Better Capitalism is a sincere search for a better world."—Cato Institute

Donate Now >>