Margaret Thatcher, much like her American counterpart Ronald Reagan, will provoke intensely fueled emotions on both sides of the political spectrum when she is brought up. To many on the Right, she is the “Iron Lady:” a Carlylean figure who pulled Britain out of its decline and into the modern age, who rescued the Falkland Islands and in doing so preserved another spot where the sun never sets, and stood firmly against the Soviet Union and Bolshevik ideology. But to those on the Left, she was a witch, who saw income inequality rise, brutally repressed strikes, and forced many out of work.
However, so much of what is sprouted by the Left seems more as projection and a desperate attempt to counter a woman who not only broke gender barriers as a conservative but whose policies indeed I will argue worked. After all, no civilized and respectable person should even think of celebrating the death of anyone, especially the death of a mainstream political figure, by buying the song “Ding-Dong! The Witch Is Dead” (which Leftists did after her passing). Two decades after her Premiership, this behavior in response to her death spoke to a lack of morals and the decline in political respect and manners in the West see today.
To explain to you why Margaret Thatcher was a truly herculean and important figure, much beloved on the Right and detested on the Left, it is necessary that I give you an idea of the state Britain was in when Thatcher assumed power in 1979. It was a mess, both economically and socially, much as America was under Carter (and indeed paralleling both Britain and America today). At the time, Britain’s once mighty manufacturing industry had progressively declined since the end of the Second World War, because of a combination of outsourcing and excessive union control which inhibited innovation. Furthermore, much like “overmighty subjects” of pre-Tudor England, pre-Thatcher England’s trade unions were more powerful than the central government, with various strikes from the artificially propped-up British coal industry crippling and bringing down the government of Edward Heath in 1974. Finally, many industries were nationalized by the government, and due to a lack of competition, these industries were absent of innovation. As a result of this, as well as the finishing touches of widespread unemployment and inflation, the 1970s in Britain were a decade of gloom and anger, a decade that Thatcher’s victory against Labour’s James Callaghan in 1979 served as a reaction against.
Thatcher’s model was one of freedom from government and allowing individuals to reach their full potential. By being dependent on the government, as the Britons of the 1970s were, one’s income, career choices, and potential in life are restricted and confined to what the government is willing to provide, which is less than what could be achieved on one’s own initiative, and as thus causes one to become complacent, unmotivated, and disheartened. At the same time, this causes society to become sclerotic and allergic to genuine growth, innovation, or initiative. Through these factors, government control serves as a drain on the economy, the individual, and national well-being, and the common good. Margaret Thatcher recognized this in her model of government and thus freed Britain from the sclerosis of Keynesianism, which as we shall discuss, made Britain great again. In this article, we will go through several areas of accomplishment where Baroness Thatcher showed herself to be a great stateswoman.
Thatcher’s Response to the Coal Miner’s Strike
One of Margaret Thatcher’s most controversial actions was her unwillingness to surrender to the coal miners during the 1984-1985 Miner’s Strike. At the time, the coal industry, which had been largely nationalized in 1946, was not as profitable as it once was, as it faced lower demand and greater mining costs than it had previously. As such, Thatcher’s decision to not cave to the Miner’s Unions, and instead allow the closure of coal mines was inevitable and necessary for Britain, lest the interests of a few trade unionists detract from the common good. The inevitability of this decline in the coal industry can be seen long before the Premiership of Thatcher, as it was during the 1960s that the coal industry declined most precipitously. Thatcher’s unwillingness to “cave in” to the trade unions, and instead stand up to those overmighty subjects was necessary for the common good of Britain, as it prevented overly expensive energy costs, energy shortages (as had happened in 1974), and a repeat of the political paralysis of the Heath Premiership caused by attempts by the Trade Unions to try to take power from Parliament, and thereby degrade the British constitution.
For all the genuine good that trade unions can do, in this case, they were a nuisance that ignored supply and demand, inflated prices, and held excessive, undemocratic power in government. In line with Thatcher’s view that the economy should be self-sufficient without heavy-handed government subsidization, Thatcher stood strong when the inevitable strikes came against her coal efforts; they ultimately backed down. Understandably, her breaking of the unions would be divisive, but as an outsider, I can’t help but feel it was necessary. Unions had grown more daring, and all but unrestrained. In no world should they have the ability to shut down a nation, especially for a cause that is so detached from the genuine well-being of a nation.
GDP Growth under Thatcher
Britain’s Gross Domestic Product, the measure of a country’s economic output, under Thatcher saw growth consecutively between 1981 and 1991, reaching a peak of 5.73% in 1988, outpacing both Europe and the world’s average during then. Inflation nose-dived through the ‘80s, reaching a minimum of 3.43% in 1986, after peaking at 18% in 1980 and 24.2% in 1975.
Unemployment Rate
Unemployment did in fact rise through her premiership, reaching a staggering 12% in 1984. Some causes can be made for this, such as the continued decline in manufacturing and heavy industries, and the inability to find a replacement career for those former workers can be seen by some as a fault of Thatcher’s non-interventionism. Nonetheless, this rise in or continued high rate of unemployment was actually a fairly uniform trend across the West during this time, whether from a general deindustrialization as outsourcing became more widespread, a shift to high interest rates to combat the rampant inflation of the ‘70s, as well as other causes. Therefore, while some criticism may be levied by some at Thatcher for a lack of a more effective response, it isn’t truly her fault fully.
Home Ownership
One area Thatcher was passionate about was home ownership, as to her it was clear that the security and stability of the family come from the home. One form of housing in Britain is council homes, which are public housing built by the local government for low-income individuals. But like most things under the oversight of the government, and not being privately owned where a homeowner would have a direct stake in it, care and attention to them declined over time. Under Thatcher, Right-to-Buy was introduced, allowing tenants of council homes to buy theirs outright at a cheap discount. With this, as cabinet secretary Michael Heseltine said, “No single piece of legislation has enabled the transfer of so much capital wealth from the state to the people”. So popular was the policy that even Labour, then derided as the “Loony Left” for the hard-left views of many of its members, had to withdraw their opposition. This policy was good for state and homeowners alike, reducing the maintenance costs for the state all the while creating new homeowners with greater fiscal stability and a greater investment in the upkeep of their homes. Under Thatcher, the number of homeowners rose from 10.2 million in 1981 to 13.4 million in 1991, an increase of over 30% in ten years, and considerably greater than the increase to only 14.9 million that Britain witnessed between 1991 and 2011, under Thatcher’s Keynesian successors. The British, however, seem to have forgotten the insights of Baroness Thatcher, and today the same councils are failing to build even one home despite the veritable piles of money allocated to them.
Income Inequality
Along with her dealing with the Miner’s Strike, the other area where Leftists usually falsely smear the legacy of Baroness Thatcher is on the issue of income inequality. Many point to the Gini Index, which measures a nation’s income equality, and shout to the rafters that with it having risen during Thatcher’s premiership, and will subsequently scream about how she is therefore responsible for all our problems. However, this is a misguided critique, as this income inequality would have had continued Labour control; as it later did under Blair, when it peaked in 2000. Of course, though, truth is much less satisfying for those too emotionally immature or politically biased to handle it.
Under Thatcher, median household income between 1979 and 1990 rose from £270.74 a week to £341.58, an increase of over a quarter. This is remarkable, even if it was uneven, as it is better for everyone, rich and poor alike, to have a wealthy society than to have an immiserated and poor one with the pitiful consolation of equality. Thatcher’s Premiership witnessed a rapid rise in British incomes, and even though income inequality is bad, it is far preferable to the stagnation and decline that Britain was facing in the 1970s.
Conclusion
Perhaps it’s good that Thatcher passed when she did, for she won’t see what is happening to the nation she loved. The Tories today are looking down the barrel of a historic landslide defeat, and rightfully so, as they have continually lied and failed to deliver anything to their voters, be it on issues such as immigration or targeting a quixotic 2050 “net zero” goal, as living standards decline all the while decline. How is it possible after a landslide of their own in 2019, they managed to squander it so badly as to be reduced to a mere revolving door of PMs and false promises? Even if Thatcher’s time in power was some 30-40 years ago, and Britain today would be unrecognizable to her, we can see that her ideas are gaining traction throughout the world, such as in the pro-market policies of Javier Millei of Argentina, Viktor Orban of Hungary, or Nayib Bukele of El Salvador. Hopefully, Britain and America will pick up her legacy once more and restore the freedom and prosperity that she stood for.