The appeal of Margaret Thatcher
Margaret Thatcher’s legacy is split across the UK, telling of the different effects of her tenure: for those in mining areas whose towns and cities remain desolate, she was and still is the enemy, and the most hated of prime ministers. For those who benefited from her regime[J1] [LSC2] [LSC3] , she is admired as having shaped up the country and done what was necessary. Some believe that she was unnecessarily cruel and others that her enemies deserved it. But what was the appeal of Thatcher?
First, we must emphasize that both Thatcher and her Governments were, taking an average of her tenure, not very popular. The points at which her popularity peaked coincide uncannily with the times are which general elections were called.
Thatcher was savvy about when she called general elections, never too early so as to seem to be opportunistically seizing a wave of popularity and never too late so as to let it fizzle and die. Though the Falklands made her massively popular, and led to her highest popularity ever (60% approval, net 20%), she was hesitant to call an election right away. She was at the able to read the political mood at this time and continued to have relatively high popularity until June 1983 when she called an election, though she had earlier hinted that she hoped to go on to the autumn of 1983.[1]
In this piece I hope to explore such questions as whether the same characteristics that brought appeal to her also caused the nadir’s of unpopularity. Thatcher’s popularity dropped dramatically during her last term due to the poll tax feud, in fact to levels only seen before during the early part of her first term. However, comparison of the Thatcher of the early years, and Thatcher in her third term shows a sharp difference. She became less and less open to listening to her colleagues, whilst simultaneously becoming more and more commandeering and oppressive a personality. In the following sections I hope to explore Thatcher’s persona as well as her image. The former being focused on how she was as a person, and the latter on characteristics such as womanhood and how she utilised them.
Thatcher as a persona
Over time, the way in which Thatcher consolidated her ideological victory over the UK was through becoming more and more certain in her beliefs and less willing to listen to others. However, one must raise the question of whether this was an inevitable consequence of some of the aspects that got her into power in the first place, or whether this was an avoidable mistake on her part.
A certain amount of ideological consolidation is certainly necessary in the character arc of a successful prime minister. If Thatcher had continued to repeat all of the slogans that she had charmingly introduced in the early part of her career as though they were still novel, the public would have tired quickly. Many voiced brutal oppositions to Thatcher, and as the divisions in the country become more and more strong, she could use those who opposed her vehemently as bogeymen and even scapegoats. This was no political mistake, though it would have been inappropriate at the start of her premiership. Making enemies (at least internal ones) was something that she expressly couldn’t and didn’t do in the first part of her time in office. Consider, for example, her speech on her entrance into 10 Downing Street:
‘where they is discord may we bring harmony (…) where there is despair may we bring hope. And to all the British people, howsoever they voted, may I say this: now that the election is over, may we get together and strive to serve and strengthen the country of which we are so proud to be a part’
This is starkly different from her later purposeful creation of ‘enemies within’ at which to rail at. Later, Thatcher was able to sow the seeds of division to her advantage as she created a much stricter ‘us’ and ‘them’. So in this way, she was successful.
Thatcher’s persona progressed and changed throughout her career, in this section I hope to explore whether Thatcher herself actually changed or whether it was just mutatis mutandis to continue to stay in power, that had unwanted side effects. One must describe the remarkable change in her way of interacting with others. At first her style was one which spoke with refreshing candidness. In contrast to someone like David Cameron, who exemplifies smugness and delight from poking fun at his opponents — taking pleasure in stirring up his benches like a group of rowdy school children — early Thatcher spoke entirely for herself, and corralled her party insofar as they thought what she was saying was correct and made them willing to fight for her. She did not react to noises made by her backbenchers; she made her speeches without the slightest change in tone or pause to acknowledge them or accommodate their cheers. Her blind will to push forward and continue delivering her speech no matter the circumstances is impressive. She shares this ability as a public speaker with other great speakers, such as Tony Benn.
However, as she came into office and built up confidence, she slowly lost this modesty and picked up a willingness to be quite nasty. She would actively delight in riling up her troops in a frankly arrogant and egotistical manner, which often led to her getting carried away. Take, for example, the famous ‘No, No, No’ speech. At the time, there were ongoing negotiations, in which the UK had to show good will and willingness to be an active member of the European community: strong support of the hard ecu[2]was a key component of this strategy. Throughout most of her speech she stuck to the party line and made what seemed like promising efforts to support the hard ecu, yet half way into an hour and a half’s worth of parliamentary exchange, Thatcher undermined all of this. In a few seconds worth of an off-script rant, made while the chamber and particularly the government benches were riled up:
In my view, [the ecu] would not become widely used throughout the Community — [Interruption.] — possibly most widely used for commercial transactions. Many people would continue to prefer their own currency.
John Major describes how at one point, during Thatcher’s unscripted and unnecessary rant, that ‘nearly made [him] fall off the bench,’ on the hard ecu: ‘With [a] single sentence she wrecked months of hard work and preparation’ . Thatcher’s increasingly abrasive style culminated in a particularly damaging and awe inspiring, yet calmly delivered, tirade against her by Geoffrey Howe, who dug into Thatcher for what she had become. Howe rips into her from policy choices on the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM), to quoting Churchill to her in reference to her fear mongering on Europe:
The European enterprise is not and should not be seen like that — as some kind of zero sum game. Sir Winston Churchill put it much more positively 40 years ago, when he said:
“It is also possible and not less agreeable to regard this sacrifice or merger of national sovereignty as the gradual assumption by all the nations concerned of that larger sovereignty which can alone protect their diverse and distinctive customs and characteristics and their national traditions”.
I have to say that I find Winston Churchill’s perception a good deal more convincing, and more encouraging for the interests of our nation, than the nightmare image sometimes conjured up by my Right Honourable Friend, who seems sometimes to look out upon a continent that is positively teeming with ill- intentioned people, scheming, in her words, to “extinguish democracy”, to “dissolve our national identities”, and to lead us “through the back-door into a federal Europe”.
I recommend everyone takes a read of the full speech, and/or watches a version of it.[3]
At the beginning of her premiere, Thatcher was deeply argumentative yet remained open-minded. If ever challenged on an idea she had, she would fight her corner until the bitter end, only to present the opponent’s argument as her own the next day:
She would furiously resist an argument by every device at her disposal one day, only to produce it unblushingly the next day as her own, with no acknowledgement that she had shifted her ground or that her interlocutor might have had a point.[4]
So, to her colleagues, though she was immovable and hard-headed in argument towards them, she was at least open to taking those arguments under her wing — which must have provided those who had suggested the idea in the first place some security, knowing that such a fierce debater was there to defend them. Though, the extent to which argumentation was always reasonable can be doubted, even by trusted colleagues such as Cecil Parkinson:
She could on occasions, seize unreasonably on an unimportant secondary point and flog it to death while ignoring much more important and controversial issues.
One place in which she progressed was her increasing tendency to pay attention to her personal advisors and the distinct lack of attention paid to her ministers. This was likely her largest error, for if she had continued to pay attention an placate those around her whilst remaining hard-headed, her stubbornness would have been seen as clearly an asset. This mistake played a role in both she came closest to falling from grace, the last one causing her to leave office.
First there was the Westland Helicopter crisis, which essentially consisted of Michael Heseltine voicing his built-up rage over Europe, differences in economic and defence policy all in one. Heseltine to even contradicted the government’s official line whilst still serving as Secretary for Defence, expressing discontent over choosing one manufacturer (American) over another (European) one. This was completely arbitrary, the board of the company itself preferred the American one and Thatcher was keen to maintain the ‘special relationship’. Instead, it was used in order to voice his discontent with Thatcher’s harsh way of dealing with her colleagues over differences in opinion — and the fact that she often did not allow people to feel as though their case had been heard.
The second crisis, the Community charge (unofficially referred to as the poll tax) was pushed all the way into implementation despite clear problems and unpopularity on the horizon — all with the consent of Chancellor Lawson — because he didn’t voice opposition. John MacGregor, a member of the Treasury, describes how he ‘nearly got his head bitten off’ for trying to turn the treasury against the proposal.
Ultimately it was mismanagement of her campaign for re-election as leader of the Conservative party that failed her. Those running it took support for granted and made remarkably little effort to try and placate those people who they relied on for support if they wanted to be successful. However, this is not entirely unconnected to Thatcher herself: the flawed management of the campaign only served to highlight the increasingly distant Thatcher and her lack of appreciation for her colleagues. In short, arrogance, a sense of abandonment by her colleagues, and a bit of luck all contributed to Thatcher’s downfall.
Despite these shifts, Thatcher did retain a lot of her original persona as she developed. Thatcher on TV programmes was always remarkable, albeit she presumed more and more of what she believed to be universally true and not in need of explanation. When talking to citizens, she would listen and honestly try to empathise with people’s problems. Her responses seemed not to be created by vitriol nor contempt for others’ views, but simply because she felt a conviction that it was correct. Always lacing her addresses with an honest smile if speaking to any audience member or speaking about her simple solutions to the problems of the day. Thatcher was a powerful speaker: she was clear, direct and the subject matter she spoke about always seemed crucial — every speech left you with a clear message and a feeling of confidence. Thatcher also had a tight-knit ideological field with an explanation and/or response for all phenomena. Even though her blend of free-market-social-traditionalist ideology permeated the problems and solutions of much of her agenda, she had the abilities of a technocrat. Thatcher spent a tremendous amount of time reading papers late at night so that she knew more about the subject she was to speak about. She used no ideological platitudes as crutches, her experience as a barrister and her wish to have deep knowledge about everything she was involved with meant that she could speak fluently about issues that may not have had an ideological spin to them, but were nevertheless important. Take, for example, and extract from her very unusual maiden speech to the House of Commons:
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a maiden speech, but I know that the constituency of Finchley which I have the honour to represent would not wish me to do other than come straight to the point and address myself to the matter before the House.
I cannot do better than begin by stating the objects of the Bill in the words used by Mr. Arthur Henderson when he introduced the Bill which became the Local Authorities (Admission of the Press to Meetings) Act, 1908, which was also a Private Member’s Measure. He specified the object and purpose as that of guarding the rights of members of the public by enabling the fullest information to be obtained for them in regard to the actions of their representatives upon local authorities.
Then came another major local government Measure, the Local Government Act, 1933. That Act has very considerable significance, because in Section 85 local authorities were empowered to appoint any committees they chose. As a result, many authorities began to go into committee of the full council, not merely for the purpose which is in the spirit of the 1908 Act — that is to say, in order to discuss something which was truly of a confidential nature — but in order merely to exclude the Press, without addressing their minds to whether such exclusion was justified by reference to the matter to be discussed. That began to provide the first major legal loophole in the Act. Where previously local authorities had to deliberate in open council, with the exception of circumstances arising from the business which justified the exclusion of the Press after that Act they were enabled to resolve themselves into committee merely as a matter of administrative convenience.
Retuning to her ideological views, including such as patriotism and British Nationalism. Thatcher’s ideology was a strange mix of free market principles with a conservative approach to many of the social issues of the day, for example opposing the liberalisation of divorce law (despite voting for David Steel’s abortion bill, and to legalise homosexuality).[5]But what she expressed in her best speeches, were values of equality of people, freedom, and a promise that those people who dedicated themselves to the betterment of their families’ lot in life would be rewarded with prosperity.
However, a reoccurring aspect to Margaret Thatcher is the gap between the principles she held and preached, and the reality that she created through her policy. Sometimes this was because of some form of ideological trickery: her desire to create a ‘classless society’, for example, seems to have been attained by pretending class distinctions didn’t exist, as she herself accentuated economic divides within the country. She expressed a deep desire to promote the sort of hard-working values that her father instilled in her, to value the aspirational working class — yet she made no effort to restore skilled manufacturing, properly invest in education and healthcare, preferring instead to shift the economy towards gambling on the stock market. Indeed, the effects of Thatcher’s policy in terms of social mobility and the plight of those who she deemed to be ‘her people’ (lower middle class, the ‘aspirational’ working class) might have shocked her if she was willing to see it.[6]
Thatcher’s imagery
Thatcher always dressed impeccably, in fashionable outfits — outshining her male colleagues in monocoloured suits. Though she often liked to say that she was prouder of becoming the first scientist than the first woman in office, Margaret Thatcher’s femininity played a huge role in the crafting of her image.
Indeed, at the Conservative party conference in 1975 as the new leader, she was spontaneously given a large ceremonial turquoise feather duster by an audience member, which she then laid down, picked it up and dusted down the table whilst the speaker to her left was still introducing her as the Conservative party leader. This emblem of her femininity weaved all the other themes that would accompany her premiership: modernisation as the sweeping away of the old, a well-kempt organised nation, individual ‘freedoms’ and a focus on the role of the family and the home. In a way this sort of vision of organisation and efficiency was the very thing that she sought to bring into being within her own country, but she also used this as the justification for the British Empire and therefore played a large part of her ideological justification for Britain’s ‘return to greatness’.
Thatcher’s appeal in terms of her ability to explain easily her economic policy came in the form of her translation of policy into the speak of ‘housewife economics’: economics based on common sense (familiar) ideas about spending and the economy. Her way of elucidation of economic theory through simple ideas that then created a positive narrative through which social and economic change could be justified allowed for the huge shift in the country during her premiership. Thatcherism existed, a distinct -ism, something no other prime minister in modern times has managed to christen (perhaps except Blairite politics, which was essentially was the product of Thatcherism).
When it came to introducing herself to civil servants, other ministers, and world leaders there was also a shock factor; Thatcher was a hard-headed woman who would regularly talk over her interlocutors, giving them lectures on the benefits of free market thinking. Furthermore, she was informed: she always an extremely well-briefed, often staying up until early in the morning to read all that could be read concerning whatever meetings she had the next day.
One comment that is vaguely amusing and worth a mention is that Margaret Thatcher’s commandeering, style of harsh leadership and chastising manner of speaking and of commanding her colleagues mimicked the atmosphere and hard punishment of English public (private for you Americans) school that most of her colleagues attended. Her style was reminiscent of a virtual caning, and her image like that of a strict headmistress.
Power play
Even though she was a brilliant politician, Thatcher also would not have been able to stay in power without being able to build power well. Thatcher did seem to have obstinate principles, but that she would often bend them for political, or especially power-related purposes whilst framing it as entirely in line with them is also certain. A particularly egregious example goes as follows: her government blocked the Monopolies commission from investigating both Rupert Murdoch’s purchase of broadsheet newspapers The Timesand The Sunday Times, and the merger of Sky with its only rival in private broadcasting BSB. She did this with the BBC, exchanging Alistair Milne for William Rees-Mogg, she appointed people who she thought were sympathetic to Thatcherism to positions that were supposed to be neutral, often times with questionable legality. Wherever an opportunity arose, Thatcher ruthlessly tore existing people from power and replaced them with those who were more agreeable to her. One must also remember the immense propaganda machine behind her that accentuated her good qualities and brushed over her defects — and the role she played in creating the modern UK tabloid press.
Having the press on your side means it is a lot easier to be clear and set out exactly what you want to do. As soon as goals were put out in the open, e.g. when the NUM put out proposals to have the mines remain open, the papers could slaughter that position and utilise the Thatcherite propaganda machine to mobilise public opinion in favour of Thatcherite solution.
In order to supplement this article with an example of how Thatcher differed from her colleagues, I invite the reader to watch this broadcast on which I have tried to highlight some interesting points below.
https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/111419
It seems by the broadcasts at the time of the 1974 election that much of the debate was still centred on a very left-wing way of speaking about things — the direction many of the vox-popped Conservative hopefuls wanted their party to go in involved creating a more ‘human’ face for it. Thatcher on the contrary was unapologetic about how she thought and spoke — she made capitalism, privatisation and Thatcherism popular and she made people proud to call themselves Conservatives. She spoke of freedom and human rights, of equality and prosperity and security and promised all this from a free market system — whilst also glorifying Britain’s imperial past.
Margaret Thatcher was also very good at resonating with the average person’s worries, in this interview for example she manages to do this with taxes: it resonated both something particular and something that played a role within the wider story she told about the role of government. Taxes were both something that felt depressing to have to do, there is a base instinct that it is money we have earned and that it is being taken from us — and within the vision of Thatcher, heavy taxes were a symptom of a government that interfered too much, was inefficient, etc. It gave people something directly in their lives that they felt they could support and say ‘No, No, No’ to; evidence of Thatcherism in the average person’s life.
It was an ideological symbol, but at the same time something concrete that affects people. The rest of the abstract speeches mean nothing to most of the audience. This is a lot like what Bernie Sanders does when he specifically addresses the co-payments and deductibles that the American people find difficult to pay for. It is something that can be involved in a larger ideological narrative (in the case of Sanders about the corruption of the system and the greed of pharmaceutical companies), that has a concrete representation in the form of extremely expensive healthcare.
In summary, Thatcher was a fiercely dedicated politician whose rhetoric did not always match up to what was done in practice. She had a powerful machine behind her that allowed her to be shown in a largely positive light, yet she herself was very intelligent, had an instinct for politics and had an extreme level of conviction. She undoubtedly changed the landscape of British politics and left an impact as more than just a set of policies, but as deeply divisive character for years to come.
[1]Iron Lady Volume 2 of Margaret Thatcher, John Campbell pg. 161
[2]A Europe-wide currency to be run alongside other currencies and a less federalist alternative to what was to become the Euro.
[3]https://genius.com/Geoffrey-howe-resignation-speech-annotated
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMRZM9uTd5Q
[4]Iron Lady Volume 2 of Margaret Thatcher, John Campbell p.g. 17
[5]Iron Lady Volume 2 of Margaret Thatcher, John Campbell p.g. 115
[6]I quote the term ‘aspirational working class’, but do not endorse it.
