I’m currently writing a novel (just a hobby ), and I’m wanting to create a slightly dystopian Britain. I was partly inspired by the world created by Nixon still being president in the movie ‘Watchmen’, although this isn’t so important to my novel, I was wondering if a simple explanation for the state Britain is in could be that Thatcher has been in charge from 1979-2009.
What kind of things could you see happening? How would her rule effect the UK in the current economic crisis? How would Britain’s involvement in world politics be different? What would it’s relationship be like with the EU? America? China? Could we envisage a second cold war there (Something to keep people in a little fear would be good for my purposes)?
But dystopia? I think Britain would be far better placed - not that that’s difficult. Not utopia, though.
But assuming she had not resigned and survived (politically) the coup, economically, Britain would be in a vastly better state than it is now. We’d have had a complete refresh of the Cabinet as they’d shown themselves disloyal. We would not have had the disaster that was John Major and Norman Lamont. We’d probably have paid off much of the national debt. We wouldn’t have had Brown’s raid on pensions. The Labour Party would have fractured completely after the defeat of Tony Blair in 97 (assuming a significant defeat), with the right-wing of the party joining the Liberal Democrats. But Britain would have become tired of her by 2001/2 at the latest. Step forward the new Prime Minister, Paddy Ashdown (he wouldn’t have stepped down at that election). Having been a front-line bootie, his reactions to Sept 11 would have been rather different and the invasion of Iraq might well not have taken place. I’ll leave someone more familiar with Liberal politics to fill in the rest.
However, at the next election, suppose Ashdown were to make a hash of it and Thatcher’s anointed heir gets in: William Hague. Too young to the crown in our timeline, but properly seasoned in yours. A powerful orator with right-wing politics. That could be interesting.
One of many points one could make about your post Quartz is that you are assuming Thatcher could and would have won the 1992 general election. Tory MPs voted against Thatcher because they believed she made them less likely to win their own seats.
Certainly not utopia. The woman had incredible determination but a total refusal to consider any advice or alternative to her chosen policy.
Economically better? What about monetarism? The poll tax? British Rail privatisation?
John Major was Thatcher’s protege. He then appointed Norman Lamont. If you say these men were disastrous (and I agree they were), is it not clear that Thatcher takes responsibility?
She brooked no opposition in Cabinet. She only wanted people who agreed with her. No alternatives could be considered, either in policy or successor.
If Thatcher had remained in power, I think huge parts of the country would have suffered (and possibly rebelled) and we’d be embroiled in another stupid war somwhere (possibly protecting a murderous dictator like Pinochet, whom she admired).
Here’s a quote for Thatcher fans:
The … government also implemented economic reforms, including the privatization of several state controlled industries and the rollback of many state welfare institutions. These policies were initially very successful in recovering economic growth, and are often called …(“the economic miracle”) of the … regime …, but they dramatically increased inequality and some attribute the devastating effect of the … monetary crisis in the … economy to these policies
The military government also implemented economic reforms, including the privatization of several state controlled industries and the rollback of many state welfare institutions. These policies were initially very successful in recovering economic growth, and are often called el milagro económico (“the economic miracle”) of the military regime in Chile, but they dramatically increased inequality and some attribute the devastating effect of the 1982 monetary crisis in the Chilean economy to these policies
The scenario laid out in the OP is of an alternate UK with Thatcher in charge from 1979 to 2009. Quartz isn’t assuming she could and would have won in 1992, the scenario dictates that she did (and in 1997, too).
I’m not sure that John Major was a disaster. Norman Lamont, yes, but the John Major/Kenneth Clarke government of the mid-nineties ran the country during one of the soundest periods of growth and prosperity on record. It’s funny how that administration is remembered negatively, as the sleazy fag-end of the Tory years, because in fact we really have never had it so good, as the saying goes. Sure, there were a few scandals and a few Neil Hamiltons, but there always are.
Maybe they were just riding the economic benefits of China’s liberalisation, like New Labour did after them. But they also benefited from Britain’s economic liberalisation, which they helped to implement. So they get my Most Underrated Administration award.
That was interesting though Quartz and Glee! In the novel I’ll probably be creating a slightly ‘alternate’ Thatcher to accommodate for the things I want to happen - everything else is going to be slightly offbeat and not quite ‘our universe’ anyway. All I’m really looking for is details, political and economical that could have happened that could lead Britain into slightly dystopian realms. (I’m not talking complete civil unrest here, I just want to paint a darker picture of Britain).
Could a war or a cold war do this? Who would be the major players? What internal or external political/economical events could happen that would lead Thatcher to be more concerned with war than putting money into building schools and hospitals etc?
The politics aren’t honestly so important to my purposes and there are devices in place that give me a lot of creative license, but I’m just wanting to create a certain level of believability to it.
So you’re looking for a Britain in which a slightly sinister, overbearing government imposes its will on a meek, disaffected populace? A government that pours money into unpopular wars rather than spending it on worthwhile things?
It all sounds a bit far-fetched. Could never happen.
The Falklands demonstrates that this statement is simply not true. Further, as Prime Minister, it was her job to decide.
What about them?
Of course not. John Major appointed Lamont, not Mrs Thatcher. And John Major was elected by the Tory party, not Mrs Thatcher. Sure she supported him, but the choice was theirs, not hers alone. They could have elected Heseltine or Hurd.
Actually, as the Falklands shows, she bent over backwards to keep people on-side. Indeed, this was her fatal flaw. She refused to get rid of people like Geoffrey Howe. And they got antsy for the top seat. She should have promoted them to the Lords, but didn’t.
I think you’re reaching a bit too far. Not in the 90s.
As Ximenean indicates, you couldn’t do much worse than present day Britain. Mrs T wouldn’t tolerate much of what goes on today.
For your scenario I suggest you look beyond Mrs T and take a look at the Chingford Skinhead, Norman Tebbit. Suppose his wife were killed, not wounded, by the IRA in 1984, and he takes a darker turn but bides his time. He becomes her chosen successor and wins the election in 1992. Then the jackboot descends.
If Thatcher had been in power in the 1990s and later there is no way the Good Friday agreement could have been reached in Northern Ireland - although I despise Tony Blair he had skills of diplomacy, consensus building and listening to people that Thatcher never had.
Also, if Thatcher had continued to rule then I think there would have been mounting civil disobedience in Scotland which might well have ended in a majority demanding outright independence. It is forgotten how unpopular the idea of Scottish autonomy was at the start of Thatcher’s reign - it was the arrogance of her and her ministers (and their successors under Major) that revived the movement.
I think Wales and possibly parts of England would also have begun to question why they were being ruled by Daily Mail reading classes.
If Thatcher is to remain in power for 30 years, she’s going to have to remain popular. To my mind, there are two ways of doing this.
Internal repression. Beating up on a helpless minority can be popular. You don’t need to go as far as gassing the Jews, but the Conservatives introduce Margaret Crow Laws to keep the uppity Scots in line.
Foreign adventure. Giving Johnny Foreigner a good thrashing is a great way to gain popularity. Thatcher knows this from her experiences in the Falklands. Let’s say that the 23-F coup attempt took place in 1988 and the Spanish Generalissimos attempted to invade Gibraltar. After a brief war, Gibraltar remains British and the UK takes control of Ceuta and Melilla. Have we started the British Empire mk II?. Following the events at Tianamen Square, the Chinese government descends into chaos, an so Britain refuses to relinquish control of Hong Kong in 1997.
NBif the OP hasn’t read V for Vendetta, he really should.
Spot on Tapioca. Thatcher was the most polarizing PM Britain had, she was admired by many but despised by most. If I recall I don’t think in any election her party ever got significantly more than 40% of the vote. Another 15 years of Thatcher would have killed democracy in Britain.
43.9%, 42.4% and 42.2% (1979/1983/1987) are significantly more than 40%, in my book.
This demonizing of Thatcher as the Wicked Witch of the West is just stupid, and I imagine it will continue to die out as the years pass. She was far from perfect, but overall I think it’s a good thing that somebody that stubborn came along at that time. Unpleasant realities needed to be faced.
She wasn’t even particularly angling to be Tory leader or PM, it was to an extent thrust upon her. A stark contrast to the usual self-absorbed people who get to be party leaders.
I concur, though say again that “Britain” would probably have ceased to exist if she’d continued in power. One of the developments Thatcher least wanted to happen was Scottish and Welsh devolution. Her personality, style and actions directly led to them becoming reality, despite most Scots and Welsh having been against devolution when she came to power. That’s not the mark of a skilled politician or an effective leader.
I do not condone this, but when Thatcher dies, thousands of people in every part of the UK will actively celebrate. As far as I’m aware, no other PM of whatever party has aroused that depth of feeling.
QFT. She was by no means ‘the divine Margaret’, but she generally did a lot of good. In 100 years, if not 50, she’ll be recognised as the second-greatest Prime Minister of the 20th century (second to Churchill), and the greatest peace-time Prime Minister.
Her legacy will certainly be interesting. I kind of see the history books differently. Whereas Churchill united the UK, Thatcher divided. Never has a British PM been so vehemently disliked by so many.
), and I’m wanting to create a slightly dystopian Britain. I was partly inspired by the world created by Nixon still being president in the movie ‘Watchmen’, although this isn’t so important to my novel, I was wondering if a simple explanation for the state Britain is in could be that Thatcher has been in charge from 1979-2009.