Amsterdam, Netherlands

And then, the day after National Tulip Day, the picture of the day on this blog would of course have to be of the tulips I picked and took home yesterday. This is the bunch that now sit in a vase on my computer desk aka dinner table.
In the afternoon I treated myself to another film, The Iron Lady, which I saw in the wonderful Tuschinski Theatre. Now, a film about Margaret Thatcher is always going to be a bit tricky. So let me first say that I thought Meryl Streep was truly brilliant. A very convincing, and at time spooky similarity with the real Mrs T. She deserves every Oscar she can get for her role because it truly was a stunning performance.
But… there is a big BUT with this film. You see, when she was prime minister, from 1979 until 1990 for eleven long years, I despised Margaret Thatcher. You think ‘despised’ is a bit of a strong word to use? Well, call it ‘loathe’ or ‘dislike intensely’ if you like and you get the same, true impression I had of her. She was a completely divisive, harsh, polarising and stubborn politician who basically hated anything that wasn’t south east England middle to upper class families. The North? Ireland? Scotland? Gay people? Miners? Working classes? Trade Unions? They all were met with an icy cold personality, someone who wasn’t willing to make their lives any easier. On the contrary.
It’s often said that she did some very necessary good things for the country that unfortunately hurt the population in the process. That she was the person who revived the UK, considered to be ‘the sick man of Europe’ in the 1970s. Thatcher actually did no such thing. Economic growth under her premiership was at an average of 2.4% per annum the same as in the 1970s. Her privatisation schedules ensured that the UK now has the highest rail prices of just about any country in the Europe. And it was her attitude towards Scotland that caused the demise of the Conservative Party north of the Border and helps Alex Salmond in his strive for Scottish Independence to this very day.
On a personal level I was most upset with her attitude towards gay people. Keep in mind that this was before my own coming-out, when I was still struggling very much with my own identity. Clause 28, or Section 28 as it’s also known, was a piece of legislature specifically aimed against gay people. Thatcher used homophobia to get re-elected for a second time, and in 1988 Clause 28 came into effect, stating “a local authority shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality or promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.” Is it any wonder that, at a time that I was trying to come to terms with my own identity, it was homophobic legislation like this that made me despise the lady who created it?
My main objection to the film is that it seems to glorify Margaret Thatcher. Many Americans now believe that Ronald Reagan was close to being a saint. He was not. His refusal to give federal funding for AIDS research cost many people their lives and delayed this research by nearly a decade. Reagan was no saint and neither is his counterpart in the UK. The Falklands War, which happened in Thatcher’s first government (and secured her first re-election) is shown fairly late in the film. That gives the impression that Thatcher turned the country around from a dismal island to a victorious nation during her 11 years in power and that is of course a complete twisting of historical facts. The role that her introduction of the much hated Poll Tax played in her downfall is not highlighted very much. And much to my own frustration, there is no mention of Clause 28 at all in the entire film.
Can I recommend the film. Well… yes, because of Streep’s performance and because of the way the film shows some important moments in Thatcher’s premiership. But go and see it only if you keep in mind that Thatcher was no saint. She may be a sad old lady now (and the film shows that clearly) but that doesn’t mean she deserves any compassion or pity for the harsh and cold measures she took while she was ruling Britannia. On the contrary, she should get condemned for that still.