"Still she haunts me, phantomwise..." - Margaret Thatcher

Another good way to start a fight, if such an activity it to your taste, is to mention Margaret Thatcher. Actually to really get things going, mention her in a positive light. Thatcher is one of those figures that nowadays people want to wrap up in one word – ‘monster’, ‘genius’, that sort of thing. As if any human being can be summarised in one word. The film, The Iron Lady, seems to have been criticised from both the Right and the Left, which suggests to me it’s pitched in a pretty good spot.  Its biggest problem is that it’s not that good a film, despite Meryl Streep’s astonishing performance.

One word can’t summarise a life. One film cannot summarise Margaret Thatcher. The impact she had on Britain was enormous and still controversial. John Campbell spent two large volumes discussing Thatcher (as indeed did Thatcher herself.) For those, such as myself, who are interested in politics and Thatcher but not madly, a one-volume condensation of Campbell’s books was released in 2009. It’s a worthwhile read.

As with the movie, The Iron Lady: From the grocer’s daughter to Iron Lady, is not going to reassure those who consider her the greatest evil since Hitler. But nor is it going to encourage those who think Britain would be better off if she was still in power.  Indeed his conclusion seems to be that she is the most contradictory, divisive figure in 20^th Century Britain and it seems those who think she destroyed Great Britain and those who think she saved it are both right. Everything you’ve heard is true: she took Great Britain and set the entire country in a new direction at a trememdous cost that is still being paid today.

But not everything is true. She is not the hardline privatiser and monetarist that some would have you believe. She moved more cautiously, was more aware of public opionion and was swayed much more by good advisors than her public image suggested. It was only when she seemed to believe her own publicity towards the end of her term of office that she lost her political touch.

She was a mass of contradictions. A loyal Conservative, she spent many years damaging the party, almost making it unelectable. Personally restrained and responsible, she unleashed a wave of greed and selfishness. A champion of the family, she was a distant mother. In awe of the 'Mother of Parliaments', she was an indifferent performer there.

Some parts even I could argue with. Campbell says her relationships with Reagan, Gorbachev and de Klerk, three leaders who had massive impact on their countries and the wolrd, were all examples of her lucking out with the people who came to power, rather than her having any real influence on their decisions. One such piece of luck might be plausible, two… maybe, but three? Campbell may be being less than generous here.

This is a minor quibble. Campbell gives credit where he deems it due, and blame too. I don’t think it is a left wing or right wing book – rather, it seems to be a history of the old school. You remember that? Where the writer would state what happened, in as full a manner as possible, rather than just tell you bits that agree with the thesis they set out to prove, while ignoring or distorting the rest.

Campbell sums up the Thatcher era in one telling image. Her father was a small businessman and local politican, and Thatcher’s greatest single influence. Then came Thatcher, PM for eleven years. Her son is a dodgy businessman under grave suspicion in several countries and unwelcome in several others.  That was her effect on Britain.

This is a book that will irritate supporters and opponents and that is all to the good. It is said that it wasn’t until 1988 that a history of the American Civil War was publlished that people agreed was a fair account of the causes and the course of the war – 123 years after it ended. I think a similar book on Margaret Thatcher might be even longer in coming.