Having deliberately kept well out of the furore that erupted following the death of Lady Thatcher this week, I don't intend to stoke up the emotionally charged atmosphere any more by being either gushing or blindly critical here.
Her life (and death) have clearly raised massive issues amongst the population and have, perhaps more clearly than has been the case for the last 20 years or so, revealed the divide between the political left and right in this country.
Or at least the divide that existed during her period in office and which, it would seem, has now been passed on, like some sort of family heirloom, to subsequent generations.
I say this because, if you're honest about where we are now, politically, we have pretty much continued the course that she established during the 1980s. Yes Government is marginally bigger than it would have been under Maggie; the tax take as a percentage of GDP is probably higher than it would otherwise have been, but essentially we don't have the state (for 'state' read 'taxpayer') supporting failing industries any more and, despite what Messrs Crow, Serwotka and Blower (NUT - was there ever a better named organisation?) would like to think, we are no longer able to be held to ransom by over-powerful unelected unions.
The Labour party under Blair adopted most of Thatcher's modernising agenda and that party moved its position politically speaking to one where it was treading on the toes of the Tories. If you think that Labour's current left-right positioning bears any resemblance to where it was when the likes of Kinnock, John Smith, Callaghan and Wilson were at the helm, you might want to stop reading and go and continue your debate with a two-year-old. From Mars.
I think that most of the changes she instigated were needed in order to rescue the country from decades of ineffectual government (on both sides of the political divide); to face the growing reality of globalisation, competition, free-trade and newly emerging economic powers: That some of the strategically important industries (ship-building, automotive, steel-making, energy, utilities) could have been better supported in a smaller but more specialised form (because once some of these skills have been lost they can never be rekindled), which is what happened in Germany where the trades unions recognised that without change and cooperation there would be no major industries or workers to represent.
Sadly the British unions took a more belligerent, short-term, 'fuck you' approach and were, in my opinion, more responsible for the demise of manufacturing industry in the UK than Maggie could ever claim to have been. You don't have to scratch very deeply beneath the surface of the UK's remaining dinosaur unions to realise that echoes of this approach - where efficiency and productivity were unimportant, where the success of the employer organisation was of secondary importance to screwing as much money out of them as possible even if it was unaffordable - are still around, but nowhere near as influential, today, thank God.
So the 'death parties' this week, in addition to showing some of our fellow citizens at their absolute, disrespectful, almost demonic worst (in my opinion), are actually not even about anything substantial. Maggie won the argument. She set the only possible course for the UK if the country was to achieve any kind of stability and prosperity. Does anyone really think that if she hadn't made the changes which took account of the need for our industries and businesses to be competitive on a global stage, that we would be anything other than Bulgaria, or Greece today?
Some might, but certainly not the Labour Party. Which leads me to the unavoidable conclusion that the protests scheduled for her funeral next week are so misguided as to be laughable. Born out of an outdated set of beliefs (that even the Labour Party under 'Red Ed' would find unrecognisable) and inspired by a vitriolic meanness of spirit and the same lack of understanding, generosity and patriotism that got us into the mess of the 1970s in the first place.
In the name of free speech I would defend to the death your/their right to protest (so long as it's peaceful - good luck with that); but I think if one is to commit to making a protest, one should at least have some kind of understanding of the issues involved and that it should represent a valid argument rather than just an excuse to protest without being able to offer any kind of positive alternative. It's not as if there are any issues at stake here; a political ideal or doctrine - or that any changes will come about because of the protest that takes place.
It is, in effect, a protest about something that happened almost 30 years' ago, which cannot now be changed (and nor would either main party wish to do so) and from which most of the rest of us have, happily, moved on and benefitted from. It's an excuse to be nasty and disrespectful to someone who undoubtedly changed this country for the better. Sadly, it's an event that will show that while most of us have moved on, there are still a considerable number of people in the UK who hark back to our 'glory days' as the 'sick man of Europe' (industrial action) and who are part of the problem and the past, rather than part of the solution and the future.
Anyone want to join my protest against the Corn Laws?
No comments:
Post a Comment