is Britain broken without her brand of leadership?

Fifty years ago today, Margaret Thatcher seized the reins of the Conservative Party, setting in motion an era that would shape the country for decades.

Her legacy—Thatcherism—was a doctrine of economic liberalism, privatisation, union-busting, and the unwavering belief that society should be a place where those who worked hard and showed grit would rise, and those who did not would, well, sink.

Half a century later, the question looms large: is Britain the better for it? And, as we lurch from crisis to crisis, are we dying out for a leader with her brand of conviction and unapologetic force?

It is almost impossible to overstate the impact Thatcher had on Britain. She did not just change the course of a government or a political party—she fundamentally altered the nation’s economic and cultural DNA. The welfare state, post-war consensus, and state-led industries were out; deregulation, home ownership, and ruthless capitalism were in. If you bought your council house, started a business, or believed that a bit of belt-tightening would do you good, you probably toasted her name. If you lost your job in the mines, watched your community collapse, or saw your industry sold off to the highest bidder, you likely spat at it.

And therein lies the paradox of Thatcherism. It made Britain wealthier, but also more divided. It gave millions a chance to own a stake in the economy, but left entire swathes of the country to fend for themselves. It championed individualism over collectivism and reshaped Britain into the kind of place where money talked, and if you did not have it, well, tough. Yet, for all the controversy, it worked—at least in a cold, hard, economic sense. Britain shook off the stagnation of the 1970s and became a modern, competitive player on the world stage.

But let’s talk about now. In 2025, Britain feels like a nation stuck in the mud. Productivity has flatlined, public services are creaking, and there is a sense that we have lost our ability to make decisions with any sense of purpose. The government lurches from scandal to U-turn, unable to hold a line on anything without testing the X -Twitter in old money – reaction first. The opposition promises much but seems terrified of actually standing for anything. The entire political class appears allergic to conviction.

So, is this a moment for another Thatcher? Another iron-willed, unflinching leader who makes tough decisions and sticks to them? The truth is, even if such a person existed, they would be eaten alive by the modern political landscape. Thatcher had three election wins and over a decade to reshape Britain. Today’s politicians barely survive a reshuffle. Social media means every decision is judged in real-time, every statement dissected for potential offence, every move a calculated PR exercise.

But, if we strip away the nostalgia and the Twitter noise, what we do need is leadership with actual backbone. Someone who can chart a course and, crucially, stick to it. Someone who does not treat government like a never-ending focus group but has a vision for where Britain should be in five, ten, twenty years. Thatcherism was about grit, determination, and, yes, brutal decision-making. That kind of decisiveness—though perhaps tempered with a bit more compassion—would not go amiss today.

Love him or hate him, Donald Trump has something of the Thatcherist about him. Not in policy—his economic ideology is incoherent at best—but in sheer, unrelenting self-belief. Like Thatcher, he was an outsider who stormed into power by ignoring the political rulebook. He appealed to those who felt abandoned, he relished conflict, and he ruled through sheer force of will. The difference is that Thatcher, for all her controversy, had a clearly defined economic and political philosophy. Trump, on the other hand, thrives on chaos rather than ideology. Thatcher wanted to make Britain stronger; Trump wants to make Trump stronger. If anything, his rise is a cautionary tale of what happens when conviction politics becomes an ego project rather than a vision for the nation.

The irony, of course, is that Thatcher would likely struggle in today’s Tory party. The modern Conservative brand, shaped by populist opportunism rather than ideological principle, has more in common with the reckless largesse of her political enemies than with her brand of fiscal discipline. The idea of a leader standing up and saying, “There is no such thing as public money, only taxpayers’ money,” would send shivers down the spine of politicians more used to promising tax cuts alongside lavish spending.

And yet, for all her strengths, Thatcher was not infallible. Her economic vision created a country of winners and losers, and her dogged refusal to listen—her infamous “this lady’s not for turning” stance—meant that when she got things wrong, she got them spectacularly wrong. Her demise was, ultimately, of her own making. A strong leader is only as good as their ability to adapt, and Thatcher’s downfall was as much about her refusal to bend as it was about the political winds shifting.

So, where does that leave us? Thatcherism, for all its triumphs and its scars, was a product of its time. It was a medicine that Britain arguably needed, but one that left lasting side effects. What we need now is not a Thatcher reboot, but a leader with some of her traits: courage, clarity, and the ability to make difficult decisions. We need someone who can restore confidence in Britain’s ability to run itself, without getting lost in the nostalgia of the past.

Would Thatcher recognise Britain today? Maybe. Would she approve? That’s harder to say. But one thing is certain: love her or loathe her, Britain has never quite recovered from the absence of conviction politics. Fifty years on, we are still searching for a leader who can take the country somewhere—anywhere—other than just round in circles.

Photo provided by Chris Collins of the Margaret Thatcher Foundation