This is Somerset -- *Rarely has a leader of the country polarised national opinions to the same extent that Margaret Thatcher did as she pushed through reform after reform during her 11 years in office. But Bridgwater and West Somerset Conservative MP Ian Liddell-Grainger suggests there is no denying that overall she changed Britain for the better...* Margaret Thatcher was what I call a Marmite politician: you either loved her or you loathed her. I never served under her; indeed, I wasn't even considering going into politics when she was elected for the first time in 1976. But one doesn't need an intimate understanding of politics to stand back now and realise how profoundly she changed the country. In particular, of course, she will be remembered for the way she rethought the welfare state, cracked down on excessive union power and sharpened our whole attitude to Europe. All were measures for which she earned the undying hatred of the Left – a hatred which eventually boiled over into the rioting which brought home the fact that her introduction of the poll tax was not merely one reform too far, but a very ill-judged one indeed. Yet where were we before Margaret Thatcher arrived to provide the strongest leadership we had seen since the days of Churchill and Atlee? Well, the British bulldog was being wagged by its own tail in the shape of massive, unbridled union power, which had not only led to strikes and confrontation in virtually every sector of industry but had humiliated both Labour and Conservative administrations and won us the unflattering label of the sick man of Europe. We were being comprehensively and unprotestingly led by the nose towards the brave new world of a European Federation. No wonder that as a nation we were lamentably devoid of self-esteem and self-respect. The Iron Lady changed all that. She changed our position in Europe. We were no longer a yes-man at the negotiating table, too timid to fight our own corner or object to policies which were clearly not in our interest – and don't forget the side issue of the rebates she secured, either. She changed our position in the world. No longer a fading, former global power still lamenting the loss of an empire on which the sun had long since set, but an economic powerhouse which was not frightened to stand up for itself when threatened – as we did so effectively over the Argentinean invasion of the Falklands. Which other country of comparable size, after all, could or would have mustered such an armada to go and claim back a fairly insignificant, though highly symbolic, territory halfway round the globe? And she undeniably drew the claws of the unions. The scenes during the miners' strike were distressing. But what we were witnessing was not so much police and strikers lining up to give each other a bloody good hiding but the painful process of curbing union power which was not merely undermining governments but had been causing real and severe damage to the national economy since the war. Margaret Thatcher gave us back our national pride, though at no small cost to her own standing among her European partners – not that she was the sort of person to lose any sleep over that. And as for the unions, the most telling aspect of that side of her is the fact that the reforms she introduced, such as the ban on secondary picketing, remain on the statute book more than 20 years after she left office. On the minus side, of course, she did bequeath us materialism, the me-me-me culture where those who made massive bonuses were hailed as heroes; those who could only afford to take the bus were branded losers. And the Left despised her for it. Her statement that "There is no such thing as society" is often waved around, to demonstrate quite how ferrous was Margaret Thatcher's nature. But look at the context: she was saying too many people expected 'society' (that is, the State) to sort out all their problems, whether caused by homelessness or unemployment. She followed it up by saying: "People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations." Isn't that a phrase which brings us right up to date with assertions by the Government and now admissions by Labour that the welfare system has to change? Margaret Thatcher wasn't forged from steel or chiselled out of granite. I only met her twice, on one occasion when I was with my then young daughter, Sophie. We were attending a public event and were invited to have tea with her and what impressed me most of all was the fact that she could relate to Sophie far more easily than she could to me. Sophie was really too young to know who she was, but afterwards she was obviously deeply impressed by this kind-natured woman who had talked to her. That is not, of course, the Margaret Thatcher the country will remember. It will look back on a determined, single-minded politician who was intent on putting a struggling country back on its feet through radical, long-term reforms and at pretty much any cost. Did she get it right? Did her policies change us for the better? I believe so. And – to judge by the way they have been content to continue with so many of those policies – so has every prime minister, whether Labour or Conservative, who has served since.
Reported by This is 8 hours ago.
This is Somerset -- *Rarely has a leader of the country polarised national opinions to the same extent that Margaret Thatcher did as she pushed through reform after reform during her 11 years in office. But Bridgwater and West Somerset Conservative MP Ian Liddell-Grainger suggests there is no denying that overall she changed Britain for the better...* Margaret Thatcher was what I call a Marmite politician: you either loved her or you loathed her. I never served under her; indeed, I wasn't even considering going into politics when she was elected for the first time in 1976. But one doesn't need an intimate understanding of politics to stand back now and realise how profoundly she changed the country. In particular, of course, she will be remembered for the way she rethought the welfare state, cracked down on excessive union power and sharpened our whole attitude to Europe. All were measures for which she earned the undying hatred of the Left – a hatred which eventually boiled over into the rioting which brought home the fact that her introduction of the poll tax was not merely one reform too far, but a very ill-judged one indeed. Yet where were we before Margaret Thatcher arrived to provide the strongest leadership we had seen since the days of Churchill and Atlee? Well, the British bulldog was being wagged by its own tail in the shape of massive, unbridled union power, which had not only led to strikes and confrontation in virtually every sector of industry but had humiliated both Labour and Conservative administrations and won us the unflattering label of the sick man of Europe. We were being comprehensively and unprotestingly led by the nose towards the brave new world of a European Federation. No wonder that as a nation we were lamentably devoid of self-esteem and self-respect. The Iron Lady changed all that. She changed our position in Europe. We were no longer a yes-man at the negotiating table, too timid to fight our own corner or object to policies which were clearly not in our interest – and don't forget the side issue of the rebates she secured, either. She changed our position in the world. No longer a fading, former global power still lamenting the loss of an empire on which the sun had long since set, but an economic powerhouse which was not frightened to stand up for itself when threatened – as we did so effectively over the Argentinean invasion of the Falklands. Which other country of comparable size, after all, could or would have mustered such an armada to go and claim back a fairly insignificant, though highly symbolic, territory halfway round the globe? And she undeniably drew the claws of the unions. The scenes during the miners' strike were distressing. But what we were witnessing was not so much police and strikers lining up to give each other a bloody good hiding but the painful process of curbing union power which was not merely undermining governments but had been causing real and severe damage to the national economy since the war. Margaret Thatcher gave us back our national pride, though at no small cost to her own standing among her European partners – not that she was the sort of person to lose any sleep over that. And as for the unions, the most telling aspect of that side of her is the fact that the reforms she introduced, such as the ban on secondary picketing, remain on the statute book more than 20 years after she left office. On the minus side, of course, she did bequeath us materialism, the me-me-me culture where those who made massive bonuses were hailed as heroes; those who could only afford to take the bus were branded losers. And the Left despised her for it. Her statement that "There is no such thing as society" is often waved around, to demonstrate quite how ferrous was Margaret Thatcher's nature. But look at the context: she was saying too many people expected 'society' (that is, the State) to sort out all their problems, whether caused by homelessness or unemployment. She followed it up by saying: "People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations." Isn't that a phrase which brings us right up to date with assertions by the Government and now admissions by Labour that the welfare system has to change? Margaret Thatcher wasn't forged from steel or chiselled out of granite. I only met her twice, on one occasion when I was with my then young daughter, Sophie. We were attending a public event and were invited to have tea with her and what impressed me most of all was the fact that she could relate to Sophie far more easily than she could to me. Sophie was really too young to know who she was, but afterwards she was obviously deeply impressed by this kind-natured woman who had talked to her. That is not, of course, the Margaret Thatcher the country will remember. It will look back on a determined, single-minded politician who was intent on putting a struggling country back on its feet through radical, long-term reforms and at pretty much any cost. Did she get it right? Did her policies change us for the better? I believe so. And – to judge by the way they have been content to continue with so many of those policies – so has every prime minister, whether Labour or Conservative, who has served since.
Reported by This is 8 hours ago.