What is most striking when reading Rejoice, Rejoice, Alwyn Turner’s book on 1980s Britain, is how in actuality despite the political hegemony Thatcherism gained in Whitehall, there was no one answer to the questions posed by the 1970s. As Turner posits, “if the 1970s had asked social questions about the nature of Britain, then the 1980s sought to provide political answers”; yet the world did not turn out exactly as she would have wanted. Through a happy marriage of culture, literature, and politics, Turner explains why the consensus that emerged was often “in defiance rather than in support of her beliefs”. Like a Pandora’s box, Thatcherism spawned elements which were supposedly at odds with its mission statement. Take Channel 4, the ‘free market’ newcomer to the broadcasting block, which became in practice more liberal and diverse than intended (one of the weirdest anecdotes comes from Norman Tebbit, who said of the fledgling channel that “all those programmes for homosexuals and such. Parliament never meant that sort of thing” but actually meant “golf and sailing and fishes. Hobbies”, or different interests). This was a ‘big’ decade and so what we get are ‘big’, almost macro moments with little bits of culture sprinkled in. At times you might find yourself wanting a little more clarity on the political day-to-day, but for that I’d read a different book. This is as good an overview as you’d want. It suggests that, ultimately, there “was no unifying thread that brought the nation together, no single narrative that could be shared by a clear majority”; rather, there were lots of counter-narratives, perhaps a reflection of how Thatcher “ did more to destroy existing social structures than perhaps any other prime minister in British history”. The result? A “characteristically British muddle, in which many could point to successes, but none could claim outright victory”. It meant ‘two nations’, not one. It ended with evidence that her professed aims - the supposed vanquishing of the economic ills of the 1970s - were not actually met, given that growth was just an average of 1.8%, unemployment was much higher, and inflation was on the up. Yet Turner also argues her destruction of old social structures could produce some interesting side-effects, producing an extent of social mobility in the professions, fulfilling ‘60s idealism in a conservative, meritocratic way, while also, in her government’s funding structures like the Enterprise Allowance Scheme, creating schemes that led to the birth of such institutions as Factory Records. It’s a curious point but one that forms part of the book’s larger project of presenting why ‘Maggie’ was so loved…and feared and hated, too. There’s something for everyone, even fans of Taggart (though I must say the endnotes system did get on my wick a bit!).