Thatcher -- Malice, Necessity and Class I'm reticent about contributing to a subject for which commentary, one could

say, is plentiful; nevertheless, I'm made uncomfortable by the style of the debate so far. Currently, battle engages a proud, reigning pro-Thatcher faction against an anti-Thatcher one and whose output features an dangerously large proportion of resentment and poor form. It is counter-productive, also - if their faction is outclassed they could alienate the perplexed, leading to an unnecessary prolongation of the current neo-Thatcherism. Taking a lead from Norman Mailer, you don't, Dear Reader, have to read the whole of this post. If you're bored by hard politics, skip to the indented paragraphs and a brief discussion of Thatcher's personality; if you don't think that you have time to read the whole post, please read the last four paragraphs. Thatcher's policies divide quite neatly into two groups: that which was malicious and that which was necessary. The first is self-explanatory. Within the second camp, are policies most of which were in some way historically inevitable but for which her government found a way to accomplish them either poorly or maliciously. Poll tax was a policy which colourfully represented her government's malice. Poll tax was charged per individual (or 'poll') meaning that a family of four would pay tax for every family member, with only a single adjustment for income. The previous system of 'rates' taxed a household according to the size of their property. One could fill a daily newspaper with decent arguments on tax, though I move that a solid governing principle is: tax should be levied according to the ability of a person to pay; poll tax made it so that those who were struggling had to pay proportionally more than those who were comfortable. Thatcher claimed to represent the free-market, which is laudable, though this was economic cruelty, not freedom. Another expression of this cruelty was what is known as Section 28, a part of local council reform which prohibited the promotion of same-sex relationships and the idea that they were a family relationship. I'm sure that some are tempted to say that this rule is harmful only by a peculiarity of its enactment; conversely, it is an affront to personal and vocal freedom in itself. Same sex relationships and family relationships of a homosexual nature do not harm anyone, they are a lively component of a nation of liberty and, as such, there should be no prohibition against promoting them. Historically, this rule meant that support groups which had been helping young people to understand their sexuality stopped or reduced their activities so as to avoid breaking the rule - as a result, a generation of young people who experienced non-heterosexual feelings were subjected to the wisdom and equity of the playground and their teachers. Recall that it was only in 1967 and under one of my favourite Prime Ministers, Harold Wilson, that homosexuality was made legal. Nevertheless, some Thatcher policies were inevitable, some of which were actually prudent. Section 28 was a policy of malice, while many of her free market policies were derived originally from ideas of individuality and freedom. The universe, I suppose, wouldn't tolerate a situation in which the Thatcher government enacted good policies - rather, anything sensible had to be done with an element of brutishness or incompetence. To be clear, I'm open about economics - I'm content for people to vote themselves into the free market or into socialism; centrally however, maintaining the economic system of 1979 would not have produced the economic vibrancy which followed, or an economy like Sweden's. Change was needed, though an obsessive and an enthusiast like Thatcher was one of the worst executives to do it. First an example of cruelty. Contemporary British industry was archaic and wasteful and a sensible and productive future required change, and the unfortunate closure of certain mines and docks. Nevertheless, the speed, the extent and the nature of the industrial change was unnecessary and unnecessarily cruel, most notably because of the brutality with which dissent was suppressed. For incompetence we have BT. The purpose of the free market is to allow competition: to give

business people a free chance at making money, to give customers choice and to lower costs through customers' purchasing power. With the colours of the free market, the Thatcher government privatised British Telecom but, rather than splitting it into entities which could compete, they produced a private monopoly which has led to hilariously poor service and high costs. These are important steps. Undoubtedly this process means that these two great organisations of the English-speaking democracies, the British Empire and the United States, will have to be somewhat mixed up together in some of their affairs for mutual and general advantage. For my own part, looking out upon the future, I do not view the process with any misgivings. I could not stop it if I wished; no one can stop it. Like the Mississippi, it just keeps rolling along. Let it roll. Let it roll on full flood, inexorable, irresistible, benignant, to broader lands and better days. This was Churchill, speaking on August the 20th, 1940 to the House of Commons. I have always known that that task was vital. Since last week it has become even more vital than ever. We close our Conference in the aftermath of that sinister utopia unveiled at Blackpool. Let Labour's Orwellian nightmare of the left be the spur for us to dedicate with a new urgency our every ounce of energy and moral strength to rebuild the fortunes of this free nation. If we were to fail, that freedom could be imperilled. So let us resist the blandishments of the faint hearts; let us ignore the howls and threats of the extremists; let us stand together and do our duty, and we shall not fail. This is Thatcher, Speaking to the Tory conference in Brighton on October the 10th, 1980. People often praise Thatcher's tenacity and ability, especially in becoming the first female Prime Minister. But Thatcher was, in that respect, a monoculture - without nuance, with nothing of the imagination and imagery which Churchill offered. Diverting attention from her ludicrous abuse of Orwell, Thatcher's speech is monochromatic and has a disregard for proportionality and measure; using language of an apparently stronger nature than Churchill did when he faced one of the most terrifying dictatorships of history. She presents a Tory-centric universe, in which they can all be messiahs; Churchill, with inestimably more imagination, knew that the river of history would flow without him and without the Tory party; there are no saviours, only actors. My fingers hovered over the keyboard for a moment, about to write 'Despite'. However, there is nothing 'despite' about the relationship between the above and my discussion of those who celebrate the death of Thatcher. Foremost, the death of an individual is cause for sobriety, especially with reference to those who have lost someone who was important to them. There are some cases in which death may mean the end of suffering, in which case it can be embraced; in addition, it might be relevant to celebrate the death of a brutal dictator. Nevertheless, it is not death from which people attain freedom and safety, it is the end of tyranny. The people of the UK are no freer, healthier or greater as a result of Thatcher's death, all it means is that she will no longer be alive for people who loved her, which is cause to be sombre. I have encountered people who are celebrating her death for reasons which include her support of the war in Iraq and because she continued to voice her convictions - being this offended by the views of an elderly woman is pitiful, not indicative of the personal and moral strength which is necessary to maintain a great nation. This quality reaction is peculiarly poor form on a gross scale, which is unforgivable in itself. Moreover, it marks a dangerous tendency in some of those who are anti-Thatcher and on the left - of being coarse and loud, of holding grudges and generally incubating resentment. This is tiresome but, more urgently, it will bore people with limited time and will offend people of taste, as such, this death-love is love for electoral death. The left and the anti-Thatcher camp can do better and classier - people deserve better from the left and the anti-Thatcher camp. Crudeness or resentment will not enable those who oppose Thatcher's policies to take power and install useful and fair policy; decency, humour and imagination will.

More urgently, Thatcher's death means the reanimation of discussion over her policies, and if the left act like Yahoos, the right will win the day.