Reflections on the film are below, but a couple of other thoughts before that.

First, I’m upset with myself that I haven’t visited the Tricycle before, despite having lived in the area for the best part of a year. It’s a lovely space, with a smattering of kooky features (for example, the motorised washing line in the hall) and reasonable ticket prices. I understand it has been severely affected by reductions in the arts budget, which is a shame. I’m certainly intending to go more often.

Second, I was at university with Harry Lloyd, who plays a young Dennis Thatcher in the film. More than that, I worked on a production with him whilst there – a version of David Mamet’s American Buffalo (he was out front, I was doing sound design). Of all the people involved in acting whilst I was at university whom I met, he is the only one to have made a success of it since. It is rather weird seeing him on the big screen, or even on TV (he recently starred in the BBC adaptation of Great Expectations). Nonetheless, I’m pleased for him – I remember him being a thoroughly nice chap.

So what of the movie?

I made the mistake of reading a couple of reviews before I went which suggested the plot was thin (as the movie is a biopic, such criticism is slightly absurd). However, while not quite what I was expecting, I thought the screenplay was rather effective in weaving together a disparate group of events throughout Thatcher’s life: her formulative experiences in her father’s grocery shop in Grantham; selection in Dartford (and meeting Dennis); becoming an MP in Finchley; as Education Secretary in Heath’s Cabinet; battling to become leader of the Conservatives; as Prime Minister battling Trade Unions, being attacked by the IRA, going to war in the Falklands; and, ultimately, being forced from office.

Interestingly, all the reviews I read which criticised the (absence of) plot were written by men. For me, one of the strongest themes of the movie relates to feminism and the struggle of a woman against an establishment set up to frustrate her aspiration and zeal. The movie grounds Thatcher’s ambition firmly in her father’s political beliefs – that it is up to those who can do better for themselves to do so. “I’ve fought many battles” she says when discussing the Falklands war with the US Secretary of State.

Yet this ambition and drive – the very thing which propels Thatcher to Downing Street – is also her undoing. In the scenes towards the end of her tenure as Prime Minister, Streep portrays a rather manic, obsessed and aloof Thatcher, oblivious to the fact she is powerless to prevent her term as Prime Minister from ending. It is up to her husband, Denis (played by the remarkable Jim Broadbent), to let her know that the game is up.

That contrast, between a young ambitious Thatcher and one battling with the shackles of age, is also reflected in Thatcher’s relationship to her mother. A young Thatcher, on getting a telegram informing her of a place at Oxford, fails to impress her mother, whose hands are wet from washing dishes (and to which she soon returns). Later, Thatcher accepts Dennis’ marriage proposal only on the basis that he doesn’t expect her to stay at home doing the housework and rearing the children. “Life must be about more than that” says Thatcher, adding, “I don’t want to die washing the dishes”. And yet, in the very final scene of the movie, an aged, lonely Thatcher washes up her own teacup, rejecting an offer from one of her assistants to do so. She fought hard against what her mother became, but ultimately – despite everything that she achieved – couldn’t escape it completely. “I don’t recognise myself” she says at one point watching television footage of her as an old woman.

Age, and in particular the battle with dementia, is the strongest theme of the movie, and the one around which the screenplay revolves. Throughout  Thatcher battles against hallucinations of her dead husband Denis, trying to convince those around her that there is nothing wrong with her (including an amusing scene with her doctor). Yet Thatcher’s memories occupy her far more fully than her otherwise mundane existence. Her main struggle as an elderly woman is living in the present, rather than the comfort of the past.

I imagine fully that many of those going to see the movie may dislike it for one of either two reasons. Firstly, their political priors reject the portrayal of Thatcher. I found the character rather human, allowing us to understand why she fought the battles – even those well documented and about which there is much resentment – in the way she did. Secondly, releasing a biopic about a woman who is still aliv, and focusing so heavily on her most recent years makes the dementia and drinking slightly uncomfortable viewing. David Cameron may be right in saying the movie came too soon.

But if nothing else, then I’m sure the one thing which those seeing the film will likely agree on is that Meryl Streep’s portrayal of Thatcher is astonishing (amongst an incredibly talented supporting ensemble). It is worth seeing for that alone.

All three are linked to the extent they demonstrate the complexities of issues relating to race and immigration, and the fact that, collectively, we’re not fully at ease with such issues.

Bagehot used his column to contrast the differing analyses of what the Lawrence convictions meant about British society:

“…each side is talking about a different thing. Mrs Lawrence is offering an answer to the question: is race still a problem in Britain? She says, accurately, that it is. In contrast, those heaping praise on the Lawrences are addressing separate, if related questions: have public attitudes to race changed, and did the Lawrence case play a part? The answer is yes, twice over.

Caution is needed. Britons have not become swooning converts to internationalism. Transatlantic Trends, a big annual opinion poll, found the British unusually hostile to immigration in its latest survey, with 68% of Britons seeing it as more of a problem than an opportunity, far exceeding the gloom found in France, Spain, Germany, Italy or America.”

Dorian Lynskey deftly deconstructs the opportunistic outrage against Diane Abbott about her tweets this week:

“What this absurd flap demonstrates is the desperate longing of some privileged people to wear the rags of victimhood. Any whiff of black-on-white racism, like misandry and heterophobia, is an excuse for these delicate souls to downplay the dominant prejudice and argue that there is a level playing field of bigotry or, on the crazier fringes, that there is a “war” on white people/men/straight people/motorists, etc. Coming so soon after the Lawrence verdict, Abbottgate is a nasty attempt to pretend that, hey, there’s racism on both sides now. A black man gets knifed to death by a white mob; a black MP writes a carelessly worded tweet about white people. It all evens out.”

And the Economist argued against net migration caps:

“…the City can compete successfully with other financial centres only if Britain has the right policies on regulation, tax and immigration…

The British government’s own policies on tax and immigration are … doing a lot of damage.…

Tight limits on talented immigrants damage the City’s prospects—and indeed the prospects of every bit of British business.”

The government’s bizarre net migration cap policy appears unworkable*, and also does little to prevent what Amartya Sen terms ‘plural monoculturalism’:

“This government has fallen into the same trap as the previous one – it is making policies based on negative perceptions and fears rather than addressing immigration as a neutral social phenomenon that can be as beneficial or as damaging as we make it. Sadly our government has a fantasy that if it can prevent people from coming and staying here, it will solve all our social problems.”

Issues of race and immigration are vexed and this week’s events have served only to underline that fact.

What remains unclear is whether the UK will ever reach a truly settled position on race and immigration, or whether – as seems more likely – we’re fated to muddle along with the appearance of a multicultural society, but with deep-rooted racial tension simmering under its surface.

*Read Cameron’s ‘good immgration, not mass immigration’ speech to see how confused the policy is.

Most of the document represented a mix of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat policies outlined in their manifesto. Some of those – like immigration caps – are patently daft. Others are a true blend of Con-Lib policy positions – tax policy, for example. But the one issue which appears to be raising some genuine debate on blogs and Twitter this morning is the following passage on political reform:

The parties agree to the establishment of five year fixed-term parliaments. A Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government will put a binding motion before the House of Commons in the first days following this agreement stating that the next general election will be held on the first Thursday of May 2015. Following this motion, legislation will be brought forward to make provision for fixed term parliaments of five years. This legislation will also provide for dissolution if 55% or more of the House votes in favour.

Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition agreement (emphasis added)

This 55% threshold would have the effect of allowing a Conservative minority administration to continue even if the coalition broke down – taking into account the fact Sinn Fein don’t take up their seats in Parliament, the Conservatives account for 47% of MPs in Parliament. This appears cynical, and out of kilter with the image of “new politics” being portrayed currently.

However, my understanding is that this rule could be amended by a simply majority in Parliament (assuming opposition parties could force a vote on the issue). So if the Government lost the confidence of a simply majority of MPs in Parliament, they may well be able to force an election, but it would require (1) a vote on the issue of the threshold required to result in a dissolution of Parliament and (2) a vote of Confidence. Simply put – it doesn’t guarantee a full fixed term, but makes it harder for opposition parties to force a minority Conservative administration from power (and even if they remained in power, they might find it hard to introduce any primary legislation).

So, while it looks bad on the face of it, I’m not quite sure what its practical impact would be.

To avoid contributing to the guff pandemic which is sweeping Westminster, here is a very brief reflection on the speeches made by the outgoing and incoming Prime Ministers – there was a subtle but important contrast in their vision.

My main point is this: Gordon Brown yesterday articulated a better vision of what power can achieve than David Cameron managed on the steps of Number 10.

Yes, Cameron probably wanted to appear businessmanlike and, yes, maybe Brown should have shown more vision during the campaign. Nonetheless, the contrast between the individualist and collectivist approaches to goverment were evident in the speeches made yesterday by the incoming and outgoing Prime Ministers.

David Cameron, speech on steps of 10 Downing Street, 11 May 2010:

I came into politics because I love this country. I think its best days still lie ahead and I believe deeply in public service. And I think the service our country needs right now is to face up to our really big challenges, to confront our problems, to take difficult decisions, to lead people through those difficult decisions, so that together we can reach better times ahead.

….

I want to help try and build a more responsible society here in Britain. One where we don’t just ask what are my entitlements, but what are my responsibilities. One where we don’t ask what am I just owed, but more what can I give. And a guide for that society – that those that can should, and those who can’t we will always help.

Gordon Brown, speech to Labour Party HQ, 11 May 2010:

We fought for the future.

And we continue to fight unceasingly because progress is not a word we just speak but a reality we have been creating where the ambit of opportunity always expands and never contracts. And we fight for progress because we know the energy and talent of the British people are boundless whenever they are released from stereotype and allowed to soar.

We know that progressive change is possible, because our very record shows it is.

POSTSCRIPT: Maybe the above is a proof of the saying that one “campaigns in poetry, but governs in prose”.