The Politics of Thatcherism

7/28/2019 The Politics of Thatcherism

1/12

T H E P O L I T I C S OF T H A T C H E R I S MBy Andrew Gamble

A third consecutive general election victory for the Conservatives in1987 equalled their sequence of victories in the 1950s and ensured thatthe party w ould continue in governm ent for a further pa rliam en t. If thenext general election is delayed until 1992, the Con servatives will onceagain have been inoffice for thirteen years, as they were between 1951and 1964. There are differences this time, however. One of the moststriking is that during this second period of ascendancy since 1945 theConservatives have had only one Leader. The1980s in Britain have asa result become firmly identified as the Thatcher decade.Margaret Thatcher has established an exceptional dominance bothof her own party and of British politics, and this has been achieved notby a cau tious, safety first adm inistration, but by the adoption of newpolicies and at times unconventional means. The government hasprided itself on being radical, on forcing the pace of change, onchallenging old assumptions, and on breaking with the old consensuson the proper objectives of policy and the means for carrying them out.The success of the Conservatives under Margaret Thatcher's leader-ship and the character of the government she leads have preoccupiedcommentators from all parts of the political spectrum. MargaretTh atcher is so central to the phenomenon they wanted to explain that itwas not long before "Thatcherism" became a term in general use.'But Thatcherism is an elusive term. Attention has focused onThatcherism as a personal style, as an ideology, as aneconomic policy,and as a political strategy. T he re have been many different interpreta-tions of the na ture of Thatcherism and of the reasons why it has come todominate British politics. Thatcherism, like any other complex politi-cal phen om enon , is not easy to define. It often seems contradictory andinconsistent. T he re is much d ispute on what is essential to it and what ismerely accidental, and there is little agreement on how it should beanalysed and its success evalua ted.2The most basic divide in interpretations of Thatcherism is betweenradicals and sceptics, rather than between left and right. There areConservative sceptics and Conservative radicals, asmuch as there areSocialist sceptics and Socialist radicals. W hat is at issue in this debate is Oxford University Prcsa 1989 350

atUniversityofWarwickonSeptember6,2011

pa.oxfordjournals.o

rg

Downloadedfrom
http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/


2/12

PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS 3 5 1how great a change has T hatcherism brought to British politics? Is it allpromise and very little performance? Or has the Thatcher governmentsucceeded in shifting the terrain and the agenda of British politics inways that are likely to prove permanent?Th e radical interpre tation of Thatcherism natura lly takes the secondview. It believes that the election of the Thatcher government in 1979marks a major watershed in British politics, comparable to the electionof the first majority Labour governmen t in 1945. For many Tha tcher-ites the Thatcher government is the first Conservative governmentelected this century which has tried to reverse the ra tchet of collectivismand restore the foundations of a free society.3The party that returned to power in 1979 was united behind aleadership determined to break decisively with what it saw as the failedpolicies of the past. It sought to reverse the relative decline of the Britisheconomy and the drift towards socialism and collectivism, and to makeBritain Great again. M argare t T hatcher, most unusually for a Conser-vative Leader, openly proclaimed herself a conviction politician with amission.The sceptical interpretation of Thatcherism plays down the dis-tinctiveness of the Tha tche r g overnm ent. Th e sceptics acknowledge theunique personal style of Margaret Thatcher but argue that it ismisleading to assign it much importance in the explanation of howpolicy has been determined. The gap between political rhetoric andpolitical achievements, between what politicians say and w hat they do ,is a large one. It is no smaller in Margaret Thatcher's case, althoughshe has been unusually successful in convincing many peopleotherwise.The sceptics argue that what passes for the Thatcher Revolution isfirstly a set of social and economic changes which had nothing what-soever to do with the Tha tche r governm ent, and secondly a new set ofpolicy priorities most of which were already well established before ittook office. Thatcherism on this view is all style and little substance.The much vaunted changes, when they are closely examined, turn outnot to be real changes at all, or changes which owe little to the agency ofthe Thatcher government.A New Right sceptic might go even further. What Thatcherismappears to illustrate is the particula r vice well known in the literatu re ofpublic choice as "politician's activism".4 Successful politicians learnthe skill of seizing on new issues, imposing their definition of theproblem , canvassing solutions and mobilising a coalition of support forurgen t action. W ide publicity is obtained and a sense of movem ent andactivity generated. But soon the politicians move on to other issues.The momentum falters, and little real policy change takes place.The contrast between the radical and die sceptical accounts is sogreat that neither is likely to be wholly adequate as an interp retation of


pa.oxfordjournals.o

rg

Downloadedfrom


3/12

3 5 2 PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRSThatcherism. In one respect, however, both accounts share a commonperspective. They each assume that what is most important in under-standing Thatcherism is the relation between intention and achieve-ment. The radicals see Thatcherism as a more or less coherent doc-trine. The sceptics tend to see little coherence; and even where theyadmit some coherence, they dispute the extent to whcih the doctrinehas been successfully translated into policy. They also reject the claimthat ideas are the main source of policies.The sceptics have had some success in discrediting the radicalnotion of Thatcherism.5 But if the idea of Thatcherism as a coherentand unambiguous doctrine or ideology is abandoned, as it should be,then the focus of attention can be turned on Thatcherism as politicalpractice, the attempt to resolve the tensions between different beliefs,priorities, interests and aims of the Conservative Party. The tensionsarise because any political party pursues multiple objectives, and inthe circumstances in which it has to act not all of them can bereconciled with one another. Understanding Thatcherism as politicsrather than ideology involves identifying the trade-offs that theThatcher government came to make between its different objectives.These trade-offs help reveal the nature of the political calculations ofthe Conservative leadership. But they can only be understood if whatis valid in the radical perspective is also recognised, in particular thenew ideological ground that Thatcherism represents.Six ParadoxesThatcherism has had such impact on British political imaginationbecause the Thatcher government has challenged so many importantreceived ideas about policy, either by reviving ideas regarded asdiscredited or by advancing new ideas which challenged accepted waysof thinking. In this sense it has proceeded by putting forward a seriesof paradoxes in the true meaning of the word, i.e. claims that arecontrary to received opinion and the conventional wisdom. The pointabout a paradox is that it seems at first to be false and even absurd, butit may come to be accepted as true. There are six areas whereThatcherism has put forward claims that are paradoxical in this sense.The first is economic management. Thatcherism initially began totake shape as a distinct phenomenon because of its close associationwith monetarism. Indeed monetarism was once seen even more thanThatcherism as the essence of this new Conservatism. Monetaristdoctrine was conceived from the beginning as a challenge toKeynesian principles of economic management. Just as Keynes hadsubverted the economic commonsense enshrined in the "Treasuryvie w ", so the monetarists in their turn rejected the post-war comm on-sense associated with Keynesianism. They asserted that inflation isalways and everywhere a monetary phenomenon and can only be


1

pa.oxfordjournals.org

Downloadedfrom


4/12

PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS 3 5 3cured by monetary means; that governments cannot spend their wayinto full employment; that the achievement of sound money shouldhave priority over the maintenance of full employment; and thatgovernments can control the level of prices bu t not the level of unem-ployment through macro-economic policy.6These m onetarist doctrines were adopted by the Conservatives in the1970s as a key part of their attack upon the direction of post-wareconomic policy under successive Labour and Conservativegovernments. They offered a clear alternative to the introduction ofwage and price controls to limit inflation, and they openly repudiatedthe post-war bipartisan commitment to the maintenance of fullemployment as a government responsibility.

The doctrine of sound money did not stand alone, however. It wasalways closely associated with doctrines on public expenditure, publicenterprise and the supply side of the economy. The Thatchergovernment lost no time in making its intentions towards publicexpenditure plain. The 1980 White Paper stated that "public expen-diture is at the heart of our present difficulties".7 The governmentpledged itself to reduce substantially the share of public expend iture innational income and the range of activities undertaken by publicagencies.Public expenditure was condemned on a num ber of grounds; it waswasteful and inefficient, it reduced incentives, it crowded out invest-ment in the private sector, and it was coercive, reducing individualfreedom.8 It also required high levels of taxation to finance it. If publicspending could be substantially reduced, so too could the burden oftaxation. F rom the outset the Thatcher governm ent was committed tocutting direct taxes, and increasing incentives by weakening the pro-gressive character of the tax system.The acceptance of Keynesian principles of economic m anagement in

the 1940s combined with Beveridge's plans for social security had m adehigh levels of public expenditure and taxation acceptable and desirable.It was recognised that there had to be a balance between the public andthe private sectors, but both were regarded as making a positivecontribution to economic and social welfare. The Thatchergovernment frequently questioned these assumptions by seeking todiscredit most forms of public expenditure and praising private sectoralternatives as morally more desirable and practically more efficient.This emphasis was continued in the sphere of public enterprise. Inplace of the bipartisan acceptance of the case for some industries beingin public ownership, the Thatcher government after a hesitant startbegan to argue that all enterprises in public ownership should be sold tothe private sector, even the na tura l monopolies and the public utilities.No characteristics of industrial organisation could justify public owner-ship of industrial assets.9


pa.oxfordjournals.o

rg

Downloadedfrom


5/12

3 5 4 PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRSThe doctrine of privatisation was extended into other areas. Startingfrom the assumption that private provision is inherently superior topublic provision, Ministers instructed their departments to exploreways of privatising public services, by contracting them out to theprivate sector, by imposing charges or by withdrawing provisionaltogether.Despite the variety of different policies pursued under the label ofprivatisation, the general aim was clear and consistent. Thegovernment wished to reduce the sphere of public enterprise and publicwelfare provision as much as possible. It wished to prise individualsaway from dependence on the public sector and oblige them to becomedependent on the private sector for their needs.This insistence on the need for greater self-reliance, and greatercompetition was continued in the Thatcher government's declarationson supply side policy. Ministers insisted that there should be nogovernment subsidies or special assistance to industries in difficulty. Itchallenged the argument for regional assistance and protection. Thecase for complete internal and external free trade was accepted. Thetask of government was not to provide detailed regulation or interven-tion but to ensure that all obstacles to competition and the ope ration offree markets were removed.O ne of the m ost troublesome obstacles which the governm ent identi-fied to the successful working of a market-led supply side policy was therole played by trade u nions. H ere, too, it challenged the accepted view.It was argued that unions should have no role in wage determinationand should confine their activities to providing advice and insurancefor their members.The Thatcher government also specifically rejected the establishedidea that trade unions should be recognised as the representatives of amajor producer interest and accorded a role in the making of nationalpolicy. The corporate bias which had guided governments since the

1920s in devising a framework for industrial peace and orderlyeconomic advance was rejected.10These arguments on economic and social policy also had a politicaldimension. The actions and decisions of the Thatcher governmenthave often appeared to endorse a number of novel propositions aboutdemocracy, based on the view that market mechanisms are superior topolitical mechanisms.It is seen most clearly in the case of local government. Under theThatcher government the legitimacy of local government has beencontinually questioned. The government has come to favour the ideathat local government should be stripped of many of its functions andresponsibilities. Some New Right policy analysts have argued that itshould cease to be a direct prov ider of services and concentra te insteadon maintaining rules and conditions in which services can be supplied



Downloadedfrom


6/12

PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS 3 5 5by competitive tender through the private sector. n Ability and willing-ness to pay would be enshrined as the universal tests of all socialarrangements.The hostility to methods of allocation that are not based on marketprinciples extends to politics at the national level. M arket principles a refavoured because of a deep distrust of the way the public interest isdefined. Government, it is argued, has no special ability to determineor enforce the public interest, because government is made up ofpoliticians and bureaucrats who are not disinterested servants of thepublic good but like any other social actors seek to maximise their owninterests. nIn declaring dieir subscriptions of the way modern governmentoperates, Thatcherite Conservatives reject the ideas of a neutral andcompetent civil service serving the public interest. Many on the NewRight think that political processes systematically undermine disinter-ested and altruistic behaviour. The policy-making process is distortedby the activities of special interests and by the desire of bu reauc rats tomaximise the size of their budgets.The conclusion is that since political institutions are much poorerthan markets in providing accountability and choice, the only remedyis for government to be kept as limited as possible. Too often politicalprocesses provide cloaks for the activity of special interests, claiming toact in the general interest, and the danger is the greater the moreextensive government becomes.These kinds of assumptions and attitudes are a radical departure fromthe bipartisan consensus that government action could be benign , that thecivil service could be trusted to be impartial and competent in implemen-ting programmes which had been democratically approved at generalelections, and that the notions of public interest and public service bothhad meaning. Thatcherism rejects the notion of public service in manythough not all areas of the public sector. The desire to take many areas outof politics and return them to a process of market allocation and decision-making has always been one of its central themes.The final area where Thatcherism has been credited with radicalnotions is its foreign economic policy. National economic managem entof the kind sanctioned under a Keynesian policy regime has beencondemned as ineffective. The Thatcher government placed its trust inopen m arkets, the abolition of exchange controls and trade barr iers , theremoval of controls on inward and ou tward investment. Discretionaryeconomic management aimed at maintaining full employment or aparticular exchange rate was held to be misguided. T he task of nationa leconomic management should be to maintain sound money, andaccept whatever level of interest rates and the exchange rate werenecessary to achieve that, in the belief that the economy wouldspontaneously adjust. Businesses would be forced to become efficient


1


Downloadedfrom


7/12

3 5 6 PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRSand internationally competitive at the level of costs dictated by mone-tary policy.The Continuities of ThatcherismThese six areas all provide evidence that Thatcherism has been aradical force which has challenged existing orthodoxies and created anew political ag enda. But the evidence is not all in one d irection. Th erecord of the Thatcher government can be assessed in ways whichemphasise its continuity rather than discontinuity with what wentbefore and throw doubt on die idea of a radical break.In the field of economic management, for example, where theclaims of radical Thatcherism have been most often advanced, theThatcher government has been in many respects extremely conven-tional. Fa r from break ing with the consensus on policy, it has adheredstrictly to the main lines of Britain's post-war foreign economicpolicy. The Atlantic Alliance was confirmed as the lynchpin ofBritain's foreign policy, while the European Community was at firstaccorded a secondary status. The Thatcher government continued tosee Britain's problems and interests from an Atlanticist perspective.The adoption of monetarism also looks less radical when consideredin relation to Britain's foreign economic policy. It had internationalrather than domestic roots. The shift from Keynesianism to mone-tarism was to a considerable extent a consequence of the breakdownof fixed exchange rates in 1971-2. The acceleration of inflation whichthis permitted prompted the adoption of new means of imposingexternal discipline. The regime of international monetarism, with itsemphasis on sound money, monetary targets, fiscal restraint andpublic spending curbs, provided a new set of criteria by which dom-estic policies of national economic management were judged.Th is new policy regime was substantially in place by the mid-1970sand required no great innovations from the Thatcher government.13What was distinctive after 1979 was the enthusiasm with which theConservatives operated the new policies. The radical option ineconomic policy in 1979 was not monetarism but protectionism. Thiswas never contemplated. The Thatcher government in this respectwas highly o rthod ox, and its manag em ent of the economy was fully inline with die priorities which had governed British policy since the1940sdie maintenance of a liberal world order and support for theleadership of the United States.The re is a further twist to this arg um en t. Even if it is conceded thatthere was something novel in the degree of commitment to mone-tarism which die government displayed in its first diree years, there iswidespread agreement diat since 1982 it has substantially moderatedits hardline stance and begun to indulge in its own kind of discretio-nary economic management.14 The targets of the earlier period were


pa.oxfordjournals.o

rg

Downloadedfrom


8/12

PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS 3 5 7abandoned and the money supply was declared to have many differentmeasures, no one of which obliged the government to act in predeter-mined ways. Political judgem ent was reinstated as a crucial com ponentof economic management.Once inflation had begun to decline, the Thatcher governmentappeared to lose interest in persisting with its supply side cure for theeconomy and seeking to squeeze inflation out of the economy alto-gether. Instead, it quickly rediscovered the merits of moderate reflationof dem and, in particular just before elections. The logic of the politicalbusiness cycle reasserted itself, and the downward spiral of theeconomy and the government's popularity, which had alarmed somany Conservatives in 1981, was not repeated.If the events of 1979-82 are left aside, then the Th atch er governmentappears much more like previous Conservative administrations in itshandling of the economy than many have assumed. Conservativegovernments have always been rather more prone than Labourgovernments to unleash unsustainable expansions. By 1988 thegovernment was facing a conflict between its objectives of bringingdown inflation and avoiding measures that would jeopardise continuedsupport from sections of its electorate.In the field of public expenditure there is also much room forargument about the government's radicalism. In its first few yearsgovernment spending rose both in absolute terms and as a proportionof G D P . It has begun to fall as the economy has expanded in the last fewyears, but there has been very little overall reduc tion so far du ring theThatcher years. The Thatcher government has at best contained thegrowth of public spending. It has not achieved a substantial roll-back ofthe state.Th is failure is reflected in the structu re of taxa tion . T he governmenthas succeeded in dramatically reducing the top rate of income tax,(from 83p in the to 40p), but its cuts for lower incomes have beenbalanced by increases in indirect taxation. The tax system has beenmade less progressive, but overall the tax burden on individuals hasbeen little altered by the Thatcher years.1SThe reasons for this apparent failure are various and point to thedifficulties the government has experienced in single-mindedly pur-suing a radical course . When it was elected, it was certainly comm ittedto the reduction of public expenditure and taxation, but it was alsocommitted to increasing public spending in some fields, such as defenceand policing. These comm itments it proceeded to honou r. At the sametime the government found there were many areas of public spending,such as social security, where it was politically very difficult to imposecash limits, and others where it was at first obliged to proceed verycautiously, such as health and education. Only after 1987 did thegovernment start to bring forward radical proposals for these areas,



Downloadedfrom


9/12

3 5 8 PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRSand even then they stopped well short of full privatisation. T he successfulsubjection of these services to market disciplines still appeared distant.Some of the best insights into why the Thatch er governm ent has not sofar achieved deeper cuts in public spending have come from those mostsympathetic to its aims. From a New Righ t perspective it has had successin prising itself loose from some of the most prominent distributionalcoalitions of the K eynesian era , but it has not managed to float above alldistributiona l coa litions. It has its own set of special interests which needto be placated.Progress in disentangling government from the influence of specialinterests altogether, as the Thatcherite project requires, was thereforedisappo inting. Cuts in some program mes were balanced and sometimesexceeded by increases in o thers. One of the best measures of this is the taxsystem. Despite the widespread recognition of the desirability ofbroadening the tax base, tax privileges for crucial groups in theelectorate like mortgage tax payers have so far been maintained.O ne of the policies to which the government has come to attach specialimportance is its privatisation prog ram me. But great though the formalchange in ownership has been , the radical nature of the shift has againbeen lessened by the range of objectives which the government haspursued. " It has used privatisation to promote wider share ow nershipand increase government revenue as well as greater competition andefficiency. Critics of the program me have argued that its main result hasbeen to create a number of private monopolies in place of the publicmonopolies that formerly existed.17 On ly limited deregulation has beenachieved, the government preferring to facilitate a smooth sale of theindustries by enlisting the support of their incumbent managements,rather than embark on a major reorganisation of the businesses bysplitting them up .T he governm ent also claimed to have brought about the final solutionof the union problem which had preoccupied and defeated previousgovernments. Certain changes are indeed undeniable. The institutionsand proced ures of corporatism have been dismantled at national level,and the trade unions have been excluded from participation in policy-making. A succession of trade union bills have erected a new legalframework which has significantly reduced trade union privileges andstrengthened the position of m anag em ent. The re has been a reduction inthe number and the effectiveness of strikes, and the ability of tradeunions to block management plans to reorganise production, changeworking practices or set new manning levels has been weakened.

Nevertheless, many observers argue that the changes are less dramaticthan they appear. T he industrial base of trade unionism has been largelyundisturbed. The dramatic changes in a few industries such as printinghave not occured in many others. Con tinuing union strength is evident inthe buoyancy of earnings and real wages for those in em ploym ent. "



Downloadedfrom


10/12

PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS 3 5 9Some market liberals have similarly argued that the government hasfailed to break union power where it really matters and that theconsequence is a continuing high level of unemployment, and aninefficient labour m arket. T hey have urged that major new reforms beimplemented to remove all protection for trade union funds and toimprove the housing market to boost labour mobility.The problem for the government is that the protection of the livingstandards of those in employment has been a significant factor inpromoting the spread of a climate of "economic optimism" during thelast six years which psephologists have argued has been crucial inpromoting Conservative voting.20One implication is that the costs of creating a really free economymight imperil some of the support that the Conservatives have gainedfrom key groups of voters such as skilled workers. But free marketpolicies are all the government has for disciplining labour since it hasrejected so firmly corporatist institutions and methods. The continuingstrength of unions in the British economy might become a seriousconstraint on economic recovery if it is reflected in levels of pay thatoblige the governm ent to operate a tougher deflationary policy than itwoud otherwise choose or to acquiesce in higher inflation than itwants.From the sceptical standpoint, the partial and ambivalent characterof the Thatcher Revolution is reflected also in the attitude of thegovernment towards democracy. Although the government pro-claimed its commitment to rolling back the state, it has often achievedexactly the opposite. The powers of central government have beensignificantly increased in many areas; in particular in relation to localgovernment. The government's defence has been that in order toachieve its goal of decentralising power it has been forced to centraliseit first. Only by removing so many functions from local government isthe opportunity created for transferring them out of the sphere ofgovernment altogether. The government wishes to "depoliticise" asmuch decision-making as possible by replacing political allocation withmarket allocation.21This strategy often appears highly contradictory, and many havepointed out how the government's enthusiasm for markets has notprevented the persistence of central planning in many areas such ashigher education. Th e governm ent is also ambivalent over the freedomof life-styles which is associated with modern consumerism. It hasdabbled in schemes for moral regneration and the control of permis-siveness but, like its ill-fated family policy, these have come intoconflict with other aspects of its policy. The government would prefermarried women to stay at home to look after the children, but it haspresided over a large increase in the number of women in the workforce.22


pa.oxfordjournals.o

rg

Downloadedfrom


11/12

3 6 0 PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRSIn relation to the constitution and to the organisation of governm entthe Thatcher government has been extremely orthodox. It has notsupported any significant scheme of constitutional reform, it hasprotected the secrecy of government and, although it has reduced the

number of civil servants, it has not made any major changes so far intheir role. It is therefore vulnerable ot the charge that it has done littleto limit the powers of government. But for many authors on the NewRight constitutional reform is a priority if there is to be a lastingreduction in the role and powers of government.23Finally, there is the government's enthusiasm for internationali-sation. On closer examination this enthusiasm has often been qualified.It is more evident in some areas, such as abolition of exchange controls,than in others, such as immigration or the European Co mmunity. Th egovernment has been unable simply to ignore the growing trendtowards interdependence within the Community, but it has beenreluctan t to endorse it and has clung more than m ost other states in theEuropean Community to the rhetoric and forms of national sover-eignty.24 While it has abandoned aspects of this sovereignty, it conti-nues to insist on others.ConclusionEven a short survey, therefore, indicates that in order to have a fullund erstanding of Thatcherism and to form a judgem ent as to howmuch of a radical break the election of the Conservative government in1979 represents, it is necessary to explore the politics of Thatcherismand the trade-offs that were established between different objectives.The political calculus of Thatcherism has been shaped predominantlyby three key factorsthe doctrines of the New Righ t, a particular set ofspecial interests and distributional coalitions, and the determination ofthe Conservative Party to gain and hold power. Some observers haveregarded the last as the most important of all. 25

Thatcherism in practice has been highly ambivalent. It seeks toestablish a free economy and a strong state. But this project, whichunites the liberal and conservative strands of the New Right, can beinterpre ted in very different ways. There is a consistent market-liberalargument which sees the quest for a free economy to go hand in handwith a strong state. Reducing the range of state activities is the way tomake the state stro ng , because it makes it effective in its proper sphere,which is to support and police the market order. Conservatives see itrather differently. A free economy is a necessary support for theauthority of the state, but it is the latter which is the most importantthing to preserve. The state is not a means but an end. It has to beproperly organised and stripped of the false roles and attributesacquired in the era of collectivism. But it remains the focus of theattempt to preserve order and hierarchy in society.26


1


Downloadedfrom


12/12

PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS 3 6 1Margaret Thatcher has sometimes been described as a nineteenth-century Liberal and as having brought ideas that are alien to trueConservatism. But a closer look at the actual politics of Thatcherismreveals tha t the influence of the liberal stran d of the New Right doctrinehas been exaggerated and that in most areas it is the conservativestrand that has predominated. Thatcherism has been more aboutrestoring state authority and the political fortunes of the ConservativeParty than it has been about constructing a free economy.

1 O ne of the first uses of the term "T ha tc he ris m " was by Stuart Hall in an article in Marxism Today,"The Great Moving Right Show", published in 19782 There is now a very large literature on Thatcherism. Recent studies include Dennis Kavanagh,Thatchensm and British Politics (OUP', 1978)); Stuart Hall, The Hard Road to Renewal (Verso, 1988); BobJessop et al, Thatchtrism (Polity, 1988); Kenneth Minogue and Michael BIddiss (eds), Thatchensm(Macmillan, 1987); Robert Skidelsky (ed), Thatchcrism (Ch atto & W indus , 1988); Peter Jenk ins, MrsThatcher's Revolution (Cape, 1987).' See e.g. M artin Holm es, The First Thatcher Government (Wheatsheaf, 1985); Patrick Cosgra ve,Margaret Thatcher. A Tory and her Party (Hutch inson, 1978) and Thatcher. The First Term (Bodley Head,1985).4 S e e Pa t r i ck Dunl eavy a n d B r e n d a n O ' L e a r y , Theories of the State (Macmi l lan, 1987) , ch . 33 S e e Peter Riddel l , The Thatcher Government (Blackwell , 1985); Jes so p et a l , Thatchensm' Fo r a representa t ive s ta tement of monetar i s t ideas see Mi l t on Fr i edman, Inflation an d Unem-ployment ( IEA, 1977) .' See a l so Maunce Mi l l i a rd , The Politics of Public Expenditure ( C r o o m H e l m , 1987)I These views a r e constant themes in the publ ica t ions of the Adam Smi th Ins t i tute , th e Ins t i tute ofEconomic Affa i rs a n d t h e C e n t r e fo r Policy Studies.' O n t h e a r g u m e n t s fo r priva t i sa t ion see C ent o Ve l j anovsk i , Setting the State (Weidenfe ld, 1987)" T h e d e v e l o p m e n t of this corporate bias is th e t h e m e of Kei t h Mi ddl emas , The Politics of IndustrialSociety (An dre Deu tsch, 1979) .II S e e Gerry S t oke r , The Politics of Local Government (Macmi l l an , 1988) .11 See Ja me s B ucha nan (ed) , The Economics of Politics ( I E A 1978); Nick Bosanquet , After the NewRight ( H e i n e m a n n , 1 9 8 3 )11 F o r a n a c c o u n t of the shift in the economic pol icy regime in the mid-1970s see Paul Mosley, Th eMaking of Economic Policy (Harvester, 1984).14 See William Keegan, Mrs Thatcher's Economic Experiment (Allen Lane, 1984); Grahame Tho-mpson The Conservatives' Economic Policy (Croom Helm 1986); Geoffrey M ayn ard, The Economy UnderM rs Thatcher (BlacVwell, 1988).

11 See Jo hn Hills, Changing Tax (CPAG , 1989)." The se are very dearly set out by Veljanovski in Setting the State." See Jo hn Kay et al (eds), Privatisation and R egulation: The U K Experience (OUP, 1986)." See in particular the argum ents of Joh n M acln nes, Thatcherism at Work (Open University Press,1987)." See Samuel Brittan, " T h e Problem of Jobs and Low Incom es" in A Restatement of EconomicLiberalism (MacMillan, 1988)." See the chap ter by Jo hn Cu rtice in R. Jow ell et al (eds), British Social Attitudes. The 1987 Report(Gower, 1988)." See Stoker, The Politics of Local Government.11 See Lynne Segal "T he Heat in the Ki tch en" in Stuart H all and M artin Jacq ues (eds), The Politicsof Thatcherism (LawTence & Wishart 1983).23 See Sir Joh n Hoskyns, "Whitehal l and W estminster : An Outsider 's V iew ", Parliamentary Affairs36(1983) ." See Stephen Geo rge, An Awkward Partner- Britain an d the European Community (OUP, 1989)." Most cogently, Jim Bulpitt, "T he Discipline of the New Democracy: M rs Th atch er's DomesticStatecraft" Political Studies 34:1 (1985)." This theme is explored at greater length in Andrew G am ble, Th e Fret Economy and the Strong State(Macmillan, 1988).


pa.oxfordjournals.o

rg

Downloadedfrom

The Politics of Thatcherism

Documents

Transcript of The Politics of Thatcherism