Last thoughts on Lady Thatcher

John Greenway, Conservative MP for Ryedale between 1987 and 2010

I first met Margaret Thatcher in February 1987 with a group of Conservative supporters at Scarborough following her speech to the Young Conservative Conference. We had lost the Ryedale by-election the previous year and I was introduced to her as the new Tory candidate.

Her renowned plain speaking approach was immediately obvious in her first words – “We have to get Ryedale back.” I sensed more than a little irritation that we had dared to lose the seat in the first place. I was frozen to the spot.

Afterwards the Prime Minister took me briefly to one side, wished me good luck and said she looked forward to welcoming me to the House of Commons. In a few brief moments I had experienced at first hand both her uncompromising public face and the softer, more personal side of her character which endeared her to those who worked with her.

Voters warmed to Margaret Thatcher’s steely determination to put Britain back on its feet. For more than two decades the country had suffered the economic consequences of rising inflation, rising unemployment and trade union militancy. The political establishment knew that things had to change but they seemed paralysed by pessimism.

For Margaret Thatcher nothing was too difficult if it was right. She had the conviction and courage to set Britain on a different course, which no succeeding Government has sought to reverse. She restored the nation’s pride in itself. Her unshakeable belief in freedom and democracy and her deep hatred of tyranny helped to unleash the forces of democratic change in Eastern Europe and brought an end to the cold war which had debilitated East-West relations for more than 30 years.

Voters were often cool to her apparent lack of concern for the seemingly brutal consequences of policy decisions. This remains the source of much of the anger directed towards her even now. However, for Lady Thatcher compromise was never the preferred option. That today’s politics is so driven by consensus and under-achievement is perhaps the most remarkable feature of her legacy.

It was inevitable that Margaret Thatcher’s death would provoke new impassioned argument over the state of Britain today. Her Government’s liberalisation of exchange controls and financial trading restrictions was not responsible for the recent financial crash, which was largely caused by a failure of regulation introduced by Gordon Brown.

She did not destroy our industrial base. During her 11 years in office manufacturing’s share of the economy fell from 20.6 to 17.5 per cent. She did not slash public spending. It grew in real terms. Nor was she anti-European. She promoted and secured the European Single Market which has hugely benefited British business. What Margaret Thatcher despised was the growth of EU bureaucracy and a federal Europe. In this as in so much else she was intuitively right.

Steve Shaw-Wright, former Selby miner and now leader of Selby town council and leader of the Labour group on Selby District Council

I have been asked to write a ‘considered’ reflection on the passing of Margaret Thatcher. I could provide a commentary on the effect that Thatcher had on me, my family, my community.

In simple terms, I cannot watch Brassed Off or Billy Elliot without embarking on a rollercoaster of emotions from the dips of sadness to highs of anger accompanied by the odd tear or two.

That reaction sums how Thatcher still gets to me. She is the reason I am an activist. She is the driving force behind my own ideological commitment to improving the lot of the people in my community: I believe in society, helping those who need help, supporting those who need support, trying to make a positive difference for the good of all.

However, such a commentary would not be considered.

So here is my ‘considered’ opinion.

I greeted the death of Margaret Thatcher as I did the untimely death of a neighbour of mine – I thought of the words of John Donne, “any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee”.

But – and there always will be a but with Thatcher – she did not believe in society; she supported the apartheid system in South Africa, she supported the implementation of Section 28, the anti-gay legislation; she presided over the swingeing cuts in public expenditure which resulted in crumbling schools, pupils sharing not enough books, hospital corridors with patients on trolleys, the wholescale destruction of swathes of industry and what she did not close down she sold off in the name of a shareholding democracy – except that most of the state assets she sold off are now in the hands of foreign companies and as a nation we import most of our energy despite having hundreds of years of coal beneath our feet. She also sold off council housing at discounted prices for a property-owning democracy. That policy removed thousands of homes from council control, resulting in massive waiting lists for social housing and the development of private letting companies charging high rents and inflating the housing benefit bills. Apart from recognising her part in the defence of the Falklands, I feel little for the passing of Thatcher. But the effect of her policies will be felt in working-class communities for many years to come.

Two writers on The Press offer differing verdicts...

• Charles Hutchinson, arts editor
MARGARET Thatcher wanted to lead the country from the wilderness; Arthur Scargill wanted to lead the country further astray. Ideology and national and international progress won out over narrow dogma and union bloody-mindedness.

The battleground may have been the mining industry, but the war was as much about control of this beleaguered, sick-man-of-Europe country, as it was about the undeniably terrible toll on the mining communities.

This was but one confrontation: you should always seek strong, decisive leadership and Margaret Thatcher took on those within her own formerly ineffective party as well as those across the House, across the border and across the waters.

Britain, alas, has gone from Thatcher to Blair to a blur; its homogenous, schooled, toe-the-party-line politicians bunched up in an ever-shrinking middle ground where you wonder who stands for what and look forlornly for the next heavyweight, of whatever political hue, to be bold, resolute and prepared to upset others. The next Unflinching of Finchley.

Ding dong, the witch hunt goes on, Margaret Thatcher still drawing opprobrium as much as praise in death. She will always divide opinion at home, but China and Russia are not wrong: Britain’s first female Prime Minister was a giant of the 20th century political stage.

• Maxine Gordon, lifestyle editor
THATCHER’S death has brought her legacy sharply into focus. For every person who thought her ceremonial funeral today was appropriate, another was aghast that the nation (and public purse) was being asked to honour her life and memory in such a grand way (to the tune of a reported £10 million).

That she continues to command such depth of feeling and divide the country some 23 years after leaving office is something historians should heed.

That’s why it’s incumbent on everyone who was against Thatcherism to make their feelings known this week. Whether it’s writing a letter to a newspaper, calling a radio phone-in, or taking part in a peaceful protest – do it.

What we don’t want is future generations thinking we have forgotten (and forgiven) the Iron Lady for her actions that blighted so much of our country and laid the roots for so many of our problems today, from the financial melt-down to the tragedy of our housing crisis.

As a Scot, I have my own axe to grind. Thatcher abused the spirit of democracy in forcing the hated poll tax on the Scots first. The Scots have had their revenge. The Tory party is an irrelevance in Scotland now; the Scots have their own parliament and next year have a vote on independence.

Whatever the result, the Scots will never again be ruled from Westminster by a government they didn’t vote for.

That is another part of Thatcher’s legacy; this time, a positive one.

SARAH CATTLE and OLIVER LATUS asked people in York for their views on Lady Thatcher

Anne Butler of York, 71, retired
“I think she did well because the country was in a right state when she took over and we were a lot better off after a period of time.”

Brian Williams of Castleford, 67, retired
“She did more harm than good for lots of reasons. I come from a mining community. She devastated them. She encouraged people to put their businesses abroad, it’s never ending. I don’t think it’s right the public pay for her funeral.”

Mark Adams, retired, 49, from York and Surrey
“I like her overall. She was very strong willed and opinionated, which was needed at the time, whether you liked her or not.”

Lauren Walker, bar staff, 21, York
“She was before my time, and I’d rather not rely too heavily on the opinions of others. Like anyone, she did good and bad for the country. But her funeral should have been less expensive.”

Michael Fairey, priest, 61, from York
“I think at the time she put Britain back on the map – in more ways than one. She deserves the funeral. She was an outstanding prime minister. The others are mediocre compared to her.”

Brian Buckley, retired, 72, from Selby
“She did a very good job. She broke the backs of the unions, which needed doing.”

Steph Goodall, transport planner, 35, from Riccall
“If a lot of money was spent on the funeral, especially during a recession, it was not worth it. But she was a big public figure, so she should have been marked in some way.”

Adam Ainsley, salesman, 28, York
“I couldn’t stand her. In my opinion, she abused her responsibility as Prime Minister. I don’t mind about her funeral. Tax gets spent on a lot of things beyond our reach – but the miners put out of work shouldn’t have to pay for it.”

Malcolm Butler of York, 74, retired
“She did well to beat the unions; they were a pain.”