Reckon our politics are divisive at the moment? The death of former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher reminds us what social and political divide-and-conquer really means. As Guy Rundle writes:

“With the harsh economic policies had come a harsh social policy, of law and order, and a series of police crackdowns on inner-city communities, especially black ones. That together with vanished employment set the stage for the Northern and London riots of the period …

“In parallel, the “big bang” deregulated the financial markets and institutions, and pulled vast amounts of capital into London. The country suffered a huge geographical division from which it has never recovered — a North, West, Wales and Scotland drained of employment and capital, subsidised by a booming south-east …

“By that time, Thatcher had become more rigid, not less, in her belief in the conservative-liberal mix. The cause of freedom did not extend to s-xuality, with “section 28” laws banning the “promotion” of homos-xuality. Democratic opposition, such as the mayoralty and assembly of London, had already been abolished because they stubbornly insisted on electing Labour. Nelson Mandela had been denounced as a ‘terrorist’, even though the ANC’s armed struggle avoided civilian bombings …

“Eventually, she adopted the purest notions of Hayekian ideas — that taxes, such as council taxes, should apply equally, with no regard to property. The resulting poll tax proposal — or council charge, as it was called — prompted massive demonstrations in Scotland which quickly transferred to England, and had the country in uproar …”

We’ve been debating Thatcherism for decades; the demise of the Iron Lady of world leaders crystallises the lessons and draws into sharper focus what Britain — and the western world — is left with. Rundle’s obituary again:

“The collectivism she smashed could be over-rated — especially in nostalgia — but what replaced it has been an individualism of diminishing returns.”

Now that’s always worthy of debate.