For a small town in Lincolnshire, England, which former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher once called home, it has been an issue as divisive as Brexit: Should Grantham erect a statue commemorating the UK’s first female prime minister?
It is a simple enough question, but the process of erecting a statue of the “Iron Lady,” created by sculptor Douglas Jennings, has been a long, painstaking and arduous process.
The statue was rejected by Westminster City Council in central London in 2018 because councilors feared it would be a magnet for vandalism and protests.
Photo: AFP
It was then offered to her home town of Grantham and, following a brisk debate by the planning committee, was approved in 2018.
Some hoped that would be the end of it, but the statue remained stored away.
The council’s controversial decision to underwrite a £100,000 (US$133,915) unveiling ceremony on Tuesday then reignited the debate on whether the statue should be erected. The vote, in the middle of a global pandemic that has sparked the deepest recession in a generation, has been heavily criticized.
“We find that in the middle of a pandemic, when the public coffers both on a national level and a local level are emptying very quickly, their sense of priorities to be absolutely perverse,” Grantham Labour Party chairman Lee Steptoe said. “She was arguably the most divisive prime minister this country has ever had and this is an incredibly divisive decision by the local Tories [Conservative Party].”
For Amanda Schonhut, director of fundraising for Grantham Museum, which had been pushing to have the statue situated on a green midway between two existing statues, one of 19th-century lawmaker Frederick James Tollemache and another of Sir Isaac Newton, it is an important step forward.
“It’s been a long hard road. There’s been a few knocks and bumps along the way,” Schonhut said. “It’s nice to see things finally coming to fruition.”
She was keen to stress that the cost of the unveiling would come from private donations, but accepts the issue would continue to divide the town.
“It’s been a bit like a mini Brexit,” she said.
She hopes the statue would attract visitors to the museum and the local area.
The Labour Party have called for the statue to be displayed within the museum.
Adam Burgess, who lives in Stamford, said that he was ashamed by the announcement that the council would underwrite the unveiling.
“In the area we’re living in we’re seeing a huge number of homeless people, we’re seeing food banks springing up all over the place,” Burgess said.
Given Thatcher’s controversial legacy, it was a “poorly judged decision” to push ahead with the statue, he said.
“There’s got to be better ways to spend that money. To erect a statue of someone who was so divisive and caused a lot of heartache for the working class just seemed like a pretty shit decision, to be honest,” he added.
Ralph Harrison, a retired civil servant who lives in Grantham, disagreed and was pleased that the statue would soon be unveiled.
“It’s a relatively small town that has produced somebody that is known in the world stage and will be in the history books,” Harrison said. “I appreciate there are lots of different views on Margaret Thatcher, she is a very controversial figure, but it’s a question of achievement. She achieved something when becoming the first woman prime minister.”
Independent Grantham councilor Ashley Baxter said that there had been two notable changes since the council gave permission for the statue to be erected.
“The first significant change is that we are now being told that there is a risk that we will have to underwrite the cost of the unveiling event. And the second thing is the whole statue controversy, leading with Black Lives Matter and the [slave trader] Edward Coulson statue incident in Bristol, and statues around the world. People are questioning a lot more the merit of having statues of divisive figures,” Baxter said. “I think we really need to think carefully before we go ahead with this, in terms of the policing, in terms of security, in terms of the reputation of the town, there are questions to be asked.”
Le Tuan Binh keeps his Moroccan soldier father’s tombstone at his village home north of Hanoi, a treasured reminder of a man whose community in Vietnam has been largely forgotten. Mzid Ben Ali, or “Mohammed” as Binh calls him, was one of tens of thousands of North Africans who served in the French army as it battled to maintain its colonial rule of Indochina. He fought for France against the Viet Minh independence movement in the 1950s, before leaving the military — as either a defector or a captive — and making a life for himself in Vietnam. “It’s very emotional for me,”
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi reaffirmed his pledge to replace India’s religion-based marriage and inheritance laws with a uniform civil code if he returns to office for a third term, a move that some minority groups have opposed. In an interview with the Times of India listing his agenda, Modi said his government would push for making the code a reality. “It is clear that separate laws for communities are detrimental to the health of society,” he said in the interview published yesterday. “We cannot be a nation where one community is progressing with the support of the Constitution while the other
The Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) Central Committee is to gather in July for a key meeting known as a plenum, the third since the body of elite decisionmakers was elected in 2022, focusing on reforms amid “challenges” at home and complexities broad. Plenums are important events on China’s political calendar that require the attendance of all of the Central Committee, comprising 205 members and 171 alternate members with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) at the helm. The Central Committee typically holds seven plenums between party congresses, which are held once every five years. The current central committee members were elected at the
CODIFYING DISCRIMINATION: Transgender people would be sentenced to three years in prison, while same-sex relations could land a person in jail for more than a decade Iraq’s parliament on Saturday passed a bill criminalizing same-sex relations, which would receive a sentence of up to 15 years in prison, in a move rights groups condemned as an “attack on human rights.” Transgender people would be sentenced to three years’ jail under the amendments to a 1988 anti-prostitution law, which were adopted during a session attended by 170 of 329 lawmakers. A previous draft had proposed capital punishment for same-sex relations, in what campaigners had called a “dangerous” escalation. The new amendments enable courts to sentence people engaging in same-sex relations to 10 to 15 years in prison, according to the