You are here:   Civilisation >  Critique > A Reader's Guide to Thatcherism
 

"Yes."

"What would you call it?"

"I dunno. Ploughman's Lunch."

"Ploughman's Lunch. Traditional English fare."

"U-huh."

"In fact it's the invention of an advertising campaign they ran in the early Sixties to encourage people to eat in pubs. A completely successful fabrication of the past."

The alternative to McEwan's vision of the British as the dupes of smooth manipulators was that they were the selfish, racist filth of Rushdie's imagination, a thought that occurred to many as the Left lost election after election.

You cannot understand anti-Thatcherism, and the 13 years of New Labour rule that followed it, unless you grasp the pessimism it generated. It was a severe movement, motivated by a bleak imperative: just get rid of them by any means necessary. Labour spin, the gesture politics, the selling of one line to the Mail and another to the Observer and the smirking deceit that characterised Tony Blair's premiership were born of the conviction that the British were an essentially conservative people who had to be sold a Labour government with the same shady means they were sold a Ploughman's Lunch.

However brilliant the oppositional writers were — and a line-up that included Coe, Martin Amis, Rushdie, McEwan and Mortimer was about as good as it could have got — they shared a further characteristic, which also had implications for the future. They displayed little interest in why millions of sensible people voted Conservative. Representations of the crisis of the 1970s, the pervasive feeling of national decline, the Marxist-Leninist takeover of much of the Labour Party and the fear that the unions were making the country ungovernable are almost entirely absent from literature. Working in Birmingham at the height of the monetarist recession of the early 1980s, I was fascinated by the manufacturers who dominated the local Conservative associations but stood back while their own government in Westminster crucified their businesses with dear money and an overvalued pound. When I asked them why they bit their tongues, they replied that they would rather run the risk of their companies closing than see a return of union power.

Coe, as so often, is the exception. He tries to come to terms with Thatcherism with The Rotters' Club, about boys growing up in Birmingham in the Seventies, and its sequel, The Closed Circle. But he veers away from a confrontation and his story ends up turning on the aftermath of the 1974 Birmingham pub bombings and the growth of neo-fascist politics. Trade union power features but not the antagonism it provoked. The only true Thatcherite is the hero's precious and insufferable little brother, who by the time of The Closed Circle is an absurd New Labour MP who gets caught up in a sex scandal. Coe was under no obligation to write about the conservative backlash, of course. Indeed, to treat him or any of the other authors who were stamped by the experience of Thatcherism as "political writers" is to diminish them. No novelist with any talent just deals with political themes, and readers who scour their books for ideological clues have the souls of secret policemen. Nevertheless, it is telling that The Rotters' Club was published in 2001, about half way through the phenomenal global boom, which ran from the fall of the Berlin Wall to the fall of Lehman Brothers. By 2001, engagement with Thatcherism felt pointless because the Right seemed to have won the economic war and nowhere more so than in the Labour Party.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Anonymous
December 22nd, 2009
6:12 PM
The reason the Left will fail at the election is mentioned in this article but not given enough weight. It is the contempt with which the Left holds the general electorate. They see them as venal, corrupt, grabbing, selfish and utterly not to be trusted. They need an enlightened elite to instruct and yes, force, them to see the error of their ways. This elitism and refusal to persuade is the rotten heart of the Left. If the Left ever got its act together and realised there was no short-cut to democracy, it might be unstoppable. Then again, as I have learned and it led to my disillusionment with the Left, they may also find that the reason the Left finds itself eternally drawn to coercion is because the general population think it is better equipped to make decisions about their lives than the Left is. Sadly Partha, above, exemplifies this addiction to thinking the population stupid.

Partha
December 22nd, 2009
2:12 PM
The embourgeoisment of our society has (while having MANY merits) produced a hubristic class of consumers who deludedly conflate themselves with their betters rather than lessers. One hundred years ago, a worker could have looked at a plutocrat, his cleanliness, his attire (the fact his clothes were not torn, that he wore shoes etc), his accent and concluded that he was almost of a different breed. But today's super rich paint themselves as, "y'know, regular guys", they drop their Ts and Hs, most of us in Britain can afford to not have to walk in rags without shoes. As a result, many ordinary folk find it easier to form the impression that they themselves will probably join the ranks of the fabulous one day. This is compounded by the fact that the media they watch/listen to is essentially one big lottery advert. Which makes for an ignorant populace. The truth is that the middle-class are just as invested in the nation's well-being as the working class. They need to be told "YOU'RE ALL MEMBERS OF THE THIRD ESTATE! SO WIPE THAT SUPERCILIOUS SMIRK OFF YOUR FACE!(and get rid of that credit card. It's turning you into a tosspot with an inflated sense of entitlement) Says I.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.