The Death of Margaret Thatcher

  Image by Highways Agency

I’m a little late to the mark, but the death of Margaret Thatcher troubled me. As a “lefty”, I was massively against the entirety of her neoliberal and conservative policies and I look back on the impact of the era as destructive and causing huge inequalities. However, the announcement of her death yesterday is not something I have or ever will celebrate. It is the reverence and respect that comes with any death that translates into proportional quietness. The solemn expression of a “goodbye” is all that is necessary. Yet this is not what we saw.

The death of any person, regardless of their life, is not something that should be celebrated. However, as the news broke, people, parties and groups across the world cheered and planned parties as they experienced happiness in the loss of a life. This is inherently despicable behaviour. By all means, celebrate the downfall of a politician you disagreed with, but not their death. This woman’s downfall was in 1990, not yesterday. She left the political sphere and retreated to a personal and private life, one we had no right to intrude upon. You may argue that I didn’t live through the 1980s and I don’t understand what she did to the country. You’re right, I didn’t and I might not, but I know that death is not a thing to be celebrated.

This woman had a family, loved ones, friends, supporters, like you and I. If your mother, wife, friend died, how would you feel if the neighbours you’ve always feuded with held a street party and cheered as the ambulance carted her away? You wouldn’t. Now imagine this is what is happening to her family and friends and understand that the reaction they are witnessing in street parties (above) and at NUS national conference (below); it is unfair, it is upsetting and it is unnerving.

I am appalled to hear that #nusnc13 cheered the death of Maggie T. Whether you loved or loathed her, this is just disrespectful. #poorform
— Flo Hawking (@flohawking) April 8, 2013

You can celebrate the downfall of the politician, but not the death of a human being.

Baroness Margaret Thatcher, an 87 year old lady, 1925-2013: Rest In Peace.

“I’m not English, I’m British!”

Image by Victoria Kettlewell

The collective identity of a nation is fragile and, perhaps, malleable. Yet, in times of war, crisis and sport, it is one that unites a massive population and allows us to set aside our political differences. The fact that we think and feel differently is forgotten in these circumstances and instead, to an extent, we are able to come together as if one person and stand shoulder-to-shoulder in agreement, before proceeding into some form of patriotic endeavour. Take, for example, our coalition government during the Second World War. But what is it about national identity that makes us feel so united?

With the impending referenda on Scottish Independence in 2014 and the UK’s relationship with the EU (if the Conservative party win the 2015 General Election), political parties will be relying on this national identity to drum up support for their yes or no campaigns. In Scotland, it will be a question of “are you more proud to be British or Scottish?” We only need to look to the recent protests in Northern Ireland to note how important the aspect of national identity is to the electorate. It would appear that any threat to national identity is also a threat to personal identity. It is embedded in our cultural, language and ethnic differences. National parties such as the Scottish National Party, Sinn Fein and Plaid Cymru are also beginning to grow in prevalence.

In 1918, Woodrow Wilson, then president of the United States of America, argued that the best way to stop war from taking hold again was to grant the right to self-determination and end the control over smaller nations by empires and colonial rulers. This allowed countries such as Poland to regain its independence and saw the creation of countries such as Czechslovakia that were based on the ethnic identity of those who would be living in the state. The idea was that each country would respect each other’s sovereign rights. Ironically, it would seem, this bred tension between states and led to dangerous delusions of cultural superiority that then delivered the beginnings of the Second World War.

Hence, when Blair granted devolution of powers to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland during his first premiership, the concept of national self-determination was not new. In fact, it was rather modest of him to use referenda as a way of deciding when, in the past, independence or devolution of power have been simply handed over or fought out in a bloody war. However, we have approached an era of consent that tends towards allowing citizens to decide their own fate on their national identity, rather than the Government or, in some cases, colonial ruler to do so for them.

However, a national identity can be considered a strange concept. And if it is to unite a nation, how well does it do that? After all, we are sure to see in the Scottish referendum that not all of the electorate will see themselves as “Scottish”, but some will see themselves as “British”, both implying different relationships with their Government. Perhaps this is why the West Lothian question has never furthered. Are we in a state where “English” people see themselves more as “British” than “English”?

But as globalisation takes hold of the world, surely the concept of national identity is weakened, as we can never truly be unified on common characteristics in a more multicultural society, only in rejecting certain products or practices from other states, which can be quite rare. Maybe I’m not “English”. Maybe I’m not “British”. Maybe I’m not “European”. Perhaps, I’m simply “Earthish”.

How Not to Protest Effectively

Protestors rally outside Starbucks in Birmingham City Centre

The right to protest is a fundamental and respected right of the United Kingdom’s democracy and over the past couple of years we have seen many protests of varied causes take place in cities and towns across the Isles. Carefully and tactically planned, the aims of these protests are clearly to try and create change by winning over those around them with their cause, gathering more supporters and influencing the public opinion as a whole. However, the opposite effect can often be the result; rather than join the cause, the public criticise the protestors for “disrupting the working day”.

The anti-cuts and anti-tax-evasion pressure group, Anonymous, protested in the city centre of Birmingham on Saturday 5^th January. Demonstrating outside major high-street retailers and banks such as HSBC, Vodafone and BHS, the group rallied outside the Bullring Shopping Centre, causing the entire building to be locked down with shoppers stuck inside and outside waiting for them to disperse. Among those waiting outside was a shop-owner who complained to those protesting that they were interrupting his working day and causing him to lose money. Inside the shops, staff members barricaded the doors to stop those protesting from getting inside as customers were moved towards safety at the back of the shop. Commercial behaviour in Birmingham was brought to a standstill.

My guessing is if protesters who stormed @bullring had jobs they could afford to shop too. Try working and not disrupting my day.

— Mark Rice (@StaffsMark) January 5, 2013

Compassion can be felt all-round. There is some agreement with the cause that the cuts are hard and detrimental and that tax-evasion by major corporations is unjust and immoral and there is agreement that a protest should be held to demonstrate this anger as an effective way of raising awareness and rallying support. But there is disagreement over the method and tactics used by these pressure groups in order to do the former. The question raised is whether it is effective and fair to demonstrate outside the individual high street stores. It is arguable that it is neither and this is an opinion that many observers in the streets raise.

An apparent lack of consideration appears to prevail in the organisation of a protest outside a high-street. The fact that the employees of these companies have little or no say into the governance of the corporation as whole appears forgotten in the minds of protestors. Hence, the method of attacking individual shop stores is ineffective and often ignored by the decision-makers. In essence, the protestors are simply instilling fear in the hearts of the employees and customers of these shops as well as increasing a negative perception of themselves and their cause, creating the opposite of the desired effect.

However, the alternative (to protest outside the headquarters of the major corporations to the decision-makers themselves) is difficult. Usually these businesses are placed in locations far from the major public eye, reducing awareness-raising and there’s no way of knowing when the senior bosses are actually present at the headquarters to take note of the protestors concerns. Even if they are, it is not necessarily going to make any difference. Upon observation of previous examples (i.e. most protests outside the Houses of Parliament, Downing Street or Millbank), it is uncommon that we can see any direct effect on impending legislation.

The right to protest is one that should remain, but the ability and effectiveness of protests is minimal. Hence, the organisation of a protest must be more thoroughly considered before it is carried out, or the risk of making no effect but a diminishing level of support is highly likely. The protests witnessed in Birmingham and the comments during and after them simply show the disastrous effects of an ill-thought-out demonstration.

Also published on Backbench