So, farewell Margaret. 'The lady's not for turning', that was your catchphrase.

So, Margaret Thatcher finally goes the way of all flesh, at last goes off to meet her maker, swings that last kick at the proverbial bucket. Is is difficult to think of a more divisive political figure in British history; William I, Oliver Cromwell, Lord Liverpool, perhaps but is difficult to exclude Mrs Thatcher from that 'elite' class. Like Marmite on toast, you either loved her or hated her in equal measures.

She has long been the butt of simplistic jokes and parody by comedians and social commentators keen to display their (champagne) socialist credentials and yet Mrs Thatcher, as with all historical figures who have an impact on the society in which, and with which, they engage, was merely a product of the particular circumstances which marked British, and to some extent western democratic, society at the time.

Britain had approached the 1970s in a spirit of optimism, counter-culture morality and ethics were being adopted in the mainstream; equality of opportunity was becoming a very real possibility, however imperfect and fragile; Britain had rapidly left behind the after effects of an economically debilitating war; industry was on the rise, forged in the 'white heat' of Wilson's 1960s technological revolution. However, as the decade wore on, the early successes of currency decimalisation, entry into the EEC (now the EU) and a growing sense of well-being, started to be stymied by inflation which was climbing into double figures; the worsening of industrial relations as the workforce tried to claw back some, if not all, of the depreciation of their earnings power with ever higher wage demands and its attendant industrial action leading to strikes on a nationwide scale; unemployment, especially among the young, reached alarming proportions.

These general conditions fed a disillusionment which was palpable; what made it worse was that it was being presided over by a largely inept 'socialist' Government; 'Sunny Jim' Callaghan was probably the most ineffectual Prime Minister of the twentieth century and ushered in memories of shortages, rations and failure of public services on a scale not seen since the Second World War; living in Britain after 1975 had all the hallmarks of living in a third world banana republic.

The Liberals (now the Lib-Dems) had ceased to be a viable political alternative since the Great War of 1914-18 and so Britain was faced with a stark choice at the General Election in 1979; to continue with a Government which was clearly unable to govern in any meaningful sense (the Tories had been ousted for much the same reason in 1974 in the wake of the national coal miners' strike) or to choose a more radical, but right-wing alternative. Unfortunately, for anyone with a glimmer of a social conscience, the nation chose self-interest above all else, or at least the 20-25% of 'floating voters' did, those not wedded to the ideals of a particular party.

The national press played an important role in Thatcher's victory in 1979, probably greater then in Blair's election in 1997. In truth, they could scarce not stand behind Thatcher and the Tories, the newspapers of the preceding couple of years had been filled to overflowing with tales of labour disputes, wildcat strikes, secondary picketing, clashes with the police and double figure wage demands.

Thatcher in Britain and Reagan in the States were simply a manifestation of a increasing disillusionment with organised labour in the shape of a few very large and strong Trades Unions, a growing sense that it was 'every man/woman for himself' and to hell with social responsibility or conscience, a desire to return in short order to the earlier decade of supposed prosperity. Thatcher, or Reagan for that matter, did not cause the flowering of the 'me' generation, they just encouraged it by their policies.

Politics, and economics, are always a tightrope act. However, Thatcher could, quite justly, whatever I or you might believe, claim that she did indeed have a mandate, insofar as it is possible to have one in the constituency-based system of electing officials to office that we have in the UK, for change.

As a Trade Unionist, the anti-union legislation of Thatcher's first two terms of office were, to a large extent, and in my view, excessive, however there was little widespread support, except among staunch Trade Unionists, for any watering down of the proposals; dialogue had failed during the Callaghan years and so Thatcher might be forgiven for not wasting her and the nation's time in trying to foster a dialogue with the Unions.  Pragmatically, the Government, of whatever colour, needed to attempt to curb the worst excesses of certain TU leaders and it is interesting that the so-called 'socialist' government from 1997 to 2010 hardly repealed any of the so-called 'union-bashing' legislation of the eighties. We do, after all, live in a capitalist democracy; certain compromises have to be made if we do not wish to ferment a socialist or anarchist revolution ourselves.

Whilst the introduction of the Poll Tax caused widespread condemnation, demonstrations and, on occasion, riots, the system whereby local government collects local taxes was, as it is now, grossly unfair. I am forced to pay a high price for the property in which I live and as a result I have to pay a higher local (Council) tax than someone in a similar property elsewhere in the country because that tax is not determined by how much I earn or my ability to pay or the extent to which I use, either in reality or hypothetically,  local services but merely on the (rateable) value of my property. The Poll Tax was misguided simply because it was not based on an ability to pay, merely a fixed rate per individual, which therefore disadvantaged the most vulnerable; yet I suspect that because of the memories of its introduction, it has slowed down considerably the introduction of a 'local income tax' which surely must not be beyond the scope of computer programmers nowadays.

Margaret Thatcher's final 'crime' was to become embroiled in the what became known as 'the Falklands War', although 'the Falklands Skirmish' might be a better description. As far as I remember it, the actual fighting lasted for less time than it took to make the journey from Southampton to Port Stanley. While she undoubtedly made much political capital out of the (foregone conclusion of) victory, it is difficult to see a viable alternative reaction to the Argentine invasion. Self-determination is a key tenet in any democracy and the inhabitants of the Falklands, whatever territorial claims the Argentines may legitimately have had on the islands and I suspect about as much as the British, wanted to remain British citizens.

We have now had two leaders, Thatcher and Blair, who have both had long periods in power in the past 30 or so years and both have damaged their legacy badly by (a) adopting an almost dictatorial approach and (b) by clinging onto power when reason should have counselled letting it go. It will be some time before an objective and reasoned summary of both those leaders' legacies can be assessed.

Thanks go to E J Thribb whose masterly poetic style leads to the title today.