THE INDEPENDENT: Thirty years after Margaret Thatcher arrived at No 10 and set out to change Britain, her greatness should not be in dispute
Margaret Thatcher was not a Whistler etching. She did not do shades of grey. Nor do most of those who write about about her. She is either the best of Prime Ministers or the worst of Prime Ministers: the woman who saved the country or the woman who destroyed it. No one could claim that she was an insignificant figure. No one doubts that historians yet unborn will be discussing her legacy; that she will continue to ride the storms of controversy, as she did in her prime.
Thirty years ago, that all seemed so unlikely. In those days, even in the Tory party, very few people realised that she was the raw material of political greatness. Shortly after she won the leadership, Rab Butler spoke to Chris Patten. "This, ah, Thatcher woman. We don't have to take her seriously, do we?" It now seems laughable, but back then, he had a point. Ted Heath put her in his Cabinet, as the statutory woman. In three and a half years, she did not outgrow that status. She abolished a lot of grammar schools and free school milk; there were no other achievements. As an Education Secretary, she ranks somewhere between undistinguished and mediocre.
Ted lost two elections: time to go. But who was to take his place? Willie Whitelaw would not run against him. Everyone agreed that Keith Joseph would not do, including Keith Joseph. There was hesitancy. She brought it to an end. Her courage won its reward. Four years later, however, she had still not transformed that courage into unquestioned authority. A much less successful Leader of the Opposition than Tony Blair or David Cameron, she was often patronised in the Commons by Jim Callaghan. Her Shadow Cabinet included several men – Carrington, Gilmour, Joseph, Prior, Pym, Whitelaw – who appeared to be at least her equal in substance.
It is one of the more fascinating "what ifs" in counter-factual history: what if Mr Callaghan had called an election in October 1978? Even if Mrs Thatcher had won, she would have had a tiny majority. Could her fledgling government have survived the Winter of Discontent, which would have happened regardless, as Labour's wages policy imploded? But Jim dithered. The Winter of Discontent not only destroyed his chances. It highlighted the failure of an entire, often bi-partisan, approach to economic management. Amid all the wreckage, she alone seemed undaunted. No one else knew what to do. She insisted that she did. >>> Bruce Anderson | Monday, May 4, 2009
