As someone on the right who's never been inclined to indulge in the hagiography usually reserved for her (or, in the interests of balance, the demonisation favoured on the left), it's nice to see one of my favourite publications share at least some of my doubts on Mrs Thatcher and the place she has in Conservative party history. From the Bagehot column in this week's Economist (registration may be required) a few highlights:On misunderstanding the Thatcher election victories:
"Too many Tories..misread and misremember her reign. They see her three general-election victories as proof that power can be regained on a neo-Thatcherite ticket—when in fact her wins rested largely on her opponents' weakness and the very different state of the country. Because she thought the place was floundering, and said so, they say so too—but it isn't, and trading in anxiety no longer quite works"
N.B. Any readers from Conservative Home must read the bit in italics 50 times each night before bed.
..and consequently the dilemma she leaves Cameron:
"Mr Cameron is now obliged to pull off a near-impossible trick: reassuring some in his party about his Thatcherite credentials while reassuring the public, for many of whom the 1980s have come to be associated with callousness and greed, that the Tories have outgrown her"
Translation: this can't be done - the votes to be gained by moving on and accepting the errors of the 80's far outweigh those that might be lost in the process. On Brown & Blair's courtship of her and their claims to Thatcherism:
"Yet [Brown's] bid to paint himself as a temperamental Thatcherite, like his other cross-dressing stunts, is only a tiny part of a much vaster political heist. Because, in fact, he is a Thatcherite. Superficially, he and Lady Thatcher are oddly similar. Both are workaholics. Both emerged from ascetic low-church backgrounds with firm faith in good husbandry and industry, plus a Victorian notion of the deserving poor. Both are economic determinists. Beneath these superficial similarities, there are more similarities. Even if he uses different arguments to justify them, and absurd euphemisms to describe them, Mr Brown's economic policies are essentially Thatcherite. The overall tax burden has varied, and some wealth has been sneakily redistributed, but the fundamentals are the same: privatisation and a flexible labour market; lowish income tax (and high inequality); entrepreneurialism and property-ownership revered."
Labels: Politics
10 Comments:
Much of which I agree with, Liam, apart from that bit about Thatcher and the deserving poor. I always though her concept of the deserving poor was that they got what they deserved.
No I do not agree with all of that. Brown is not like Thatcher in fact he wrote a book devoted to submerging her reputation and highly disreputable it was . Brown does not believe in low tax , he believes in high tax which is why he has allowed state governed expenditure to grow from 38% top 45% in his ten years . This also in a period when growth started under Major might have allowed a great freeing of society . He is in a symbiotic relationship with the left of the Party who so trust him because of his record they can put up with him fawning on the great Satan as can the Unions . His record is one of endlessly increasing spending in the public sector which now accounts for 8,000,000 souls and this is the real reason the Conservatives can no longer rely on the middle classes . So many are now working for the government. Tyhey also know theyvare overopaid and cannot justify their good fiortune with performance over education crime and health. Thatcher would have detested the control and the inefficiency of all this what she would have made of the tax payer bailing out a Bank or paying for gold plated pensions I can hardly guess. He great concern was always burdening the working and private sector with the cost of a rentier trough-nose bureaucracy. Brown`s Euro scepticism ha been seen to be a sham worn only for convenience , he is now a signed up member of the conspiracy to deceive the people and steal the country. Margaret Thatcher was drifting ahead on f the game inot fixed WEU scepticism . She valued the countries institutions and continuity Brown does not , he couldn’t care less
No you have got this entirely arse about face . Thatchers clean little secret ( as Nick Cohen put it) was thaat her government was exceedingly gradualist in itys approach to change and retained many of the assumptions of the left establishment but she was a conviction politician . Brown has actually changed his views for political convenience as and when it suited him. Thatcher cam from small business , brown has never heard if it and has all but killed of the independent economy preferring corporate state .
Above all perhaps the lease holders ( Right to buy free men and women ) who are predated upon with criminal service charges by the left housing industry have been allowed to become isolated as Brown , who got Frank Field kicked out , has sprayed money at benefits . Council, housing and neglected entirely the moral ,values of self respect and independence Thatcher prized. Margaret Thatcher was a sincere Christian , Brown simply affects it as indeed he affects everything including his football and marriage . He only knows politics . Thatcher had tender feelings for her growing family about which she was human and vulnerable . You are comparing a a man who has presided over the comic misrule of the last ten years with the woman who saved the country as the Left admit and Gordon Brown acknowledged by his refusal to repeal Union legislation. This , five years of growth and the Maastricht agreement for the independence of the bank of England he inherited.
You are right that Thatcherism is not what is required now but not because it is wrong exactly but because the country has changed so much notably the spread of the state lackey, the quadrupling of the rate of immigration and the spread of so called progressive ideas by the BBC and left media. Also because the resurgence of the Labour Party as a very loose progressive Union and public sector coalition with the Celtic fringe . You cannot leave the Scottish effect out of this really ,. Counting Labour seats in Scotland is now a farce . The are different country with their own politics. You might as well count French seats . I agree with you that the conservative Party must abandon a lot but Gordon alike Margaret Thatcher.
No no no no no no no
Cassilis -just a hint. When Piper agrees with you it is time to top yourself .I left a pearl handled revolver on the side table
YOU KNOW WHAT TO DO
Where to start?
Don't get me wrong NM, I really appreciate your engagement but I have to be blunt and say this is little more than a poorly-informed rant and it'll sorely test my resolve to get through this response with using the phrase 'swivel-eyed'... oops. Let's take the Economist quotes one at a time.
The first is simply an observation that whatever the merits of Thatcherism were / are, they're il-suited to the problems the country now faces - absolutely nothing in your comment refutes this. We could trade stats on what Labour has done to the overall tax burden but it's simply nonsense NM to continually through the 'high tax' tag at Brown (not to mention electorally suicidal). Taxation as a proportion of GDP HAS BEEN BROADLY FLAT SINCE LABOUR CAME TO POWER AND IN MOST YEARS LOWER THAN AT ALMOST ANY STAGE OF THATCHER'S TIME IN OFFICE (Source: IFS - Survey of UK Tax System page 25, here) If you want further evidence of the basic truth of this assertion by the Economist look no further than the last three election results or any poll conducted on general public opinion on Thatcherism and it's contemporary relevance.
The second quote is essentially a straightforward observation of the challenge facing Cameron and one more commentators would accept - again there's nothing in your response to actually refute this.
The third quote is the one that really seems to have irked you and I suspect that's because your natural inclination is towards the sort of hagiography I referred to in my post but let's look at the details. First, the Economist points out that some of the parallels it draws between Brown and Thatcher are superficial, relating primarily to social and religious background and again you don't seem to be contesting those.
When it then goes on to talk about the more substantive similarities I can do little better than actually repeat what was said and ask you what's wrong with it?:
"Mr Brown's economic policies are essentially Thatcherite. The overall tax burden has varied..but the fundamentals are the same: privatisation and a flexible labour market; lowish income tax (and high inequality); entrepreneurialism and property-ownership revered"
Again - tell me what the Economist got wrong there and we'll take it from there.
And finally to Bob. I'm sure if he and I sat down for a pint to discuss political theory (there's a night out!) we'd find lots to disagree on - I don't want to put words in his mouth or reduce his politics to a single sentence but I suspect that last quote about Labour's broad acceptance of Thatcherism would be a neat summary of Bob's issues with the direction his party has taken. I welcome Labour's acceptance of these things - Bob, I'm sure, thinks it's gone too far and there's your disagreement.
If there's one thing I strive for on this blog it's an absence of tribalism or adversarial politics of any sort - whether left or right it's ugly and ultimately serves nobody. I hope you don't mind but for the time being I'll quietly put the revolver in the drawer....
I`m not irked , I just don`t entirely agree regrettably I have about 15 mins tops nonetheless lets have a bash.
The first quote is correct in electoral terms but,as I said ,this is as much to do with the rise of the SNP ,the swollen public sector and mass immigration .Which you ignore because it does not fit your picture . More people in England will vote Conservative than Labour at the next election as at the last and many of them will not be consensus Blue/New Labourites so there is no need to be overly cringing although I agree change is required of style and substance and support Cameron`s efforts . Polls on the word Thatcher are really not the point her memory has been stolen by the Liberal left establishment at great public expense for this purpose but her real principles are not to be jettisoned as the cartoon is .
The loaded conclusion that the Conservatives , when they tend towards “Tax cutting”,...as an emblematic stance are preying on ‘anxiety’ a non sequitar IMHO. Its a little more than that , its to do with the conviction that free choices are important and ....well the whole of the multi faceted Conservative philosophy that I do not have time for now but is a subtle almost poetic reconciliation between freedom and responsibility preferably arrived at organically and outside the state. I am happy to agree that mythic “Thatcherism” is not the whole but it is a part .Of course I am inferring from what you have said but this is to resist the implied centre of gravity you are trying to establish.
If you are discussing tactics ...well yes ok. On her supposed inability to deliver Thatcherism I have heard this odd plea before. It is somewhat typical of the Janus faced approach of the left to at first deny that Margaret Thatcher cut the size of the state (which is in a pointless and anachronistic sense true-ish) and also fail to congratulate her on what one must assume was a magnificent imposture of sneaking steady-as-she-goes Socialism past the guard of the electorate. A just-so story amenable to infinite adaptation because of the time gap which I will come on to but in truth is a desperately nebulous and complex subject offering few foot holds .
I could easily show that Brown tax as a proportion of GDP was below that of Winston Churchill in his last period. You can work out the implications of that which is to do with economic circumstances following the war political climate and so on. You forget that a mid way point from here to the second word war is 1976. You are selectively quoting figures across an abyss and this allows you to prove almost anything by decontextualising to taste .
Thatch came to power with inflation at 10 % down from 15%. The Oil crisis was not by any , means played out . She was trapped buy the promises they had made to match Labour suicidal spending plans and the Keynsian climate of opinion that pervaded not only the civil service but her own Party. National debt was out of control and the Unions were not beaten the word economy was a tiny fraction of its current size ...Just as quick taste of how different the times were remember her headline income tax cut was 83% to 60 %. . The cost of dislocation was of course enormous but in terms of direction and dynamic it was a tax cutting government . We now approach levels not see since the 70s Remember she was weak in her Party initially unlike Brown who controls his with Stalinesque ferocity. A very different position to be in. The people demanded Thatcher....Brown is more of an evil calculating grand vizier.
The broad switch to state governed expenditure in the last ten years is not the same as tax. I am quoting Niall Ferguson in Cash nexus where you will find a full explanation . The degree is debated but it is exceedingly difficult to argue that there has not been a large shift. Public sector pay rises have exceeded the private sector and the public sector has greatly increased in size. No ?
This has of course been in the latter part of the 15 year period when there has been high growth and supernaturally clement global conditions which we were well able to take advantage of thanks to Thatcher and Major so the ‘proportion’ is awfully hard to arrive at reliably. Part of the public expenditure explosion has been financed by borrowing certainly but I can think of many taxes that have gone up or been invented and none that have gone down. My favourite is IPT, heard of it ? Where was the pay back then ?I can’t open your link I`m sorry to say which is a shame . I am genuinely curious to know how anyone arrives at this counter intuitive statement but then if we have learnt anything from Blair it is that any stats must be critically read. It would be a matter of moments for me to find figures to refute it which I may access and send over later.
TO show a measure of agreement it would be more accurate to say that we have missed a historic opportunity to deliver wealth freedom and happiness by squandering our good fortune in wasteful areas and forgotten there is no money but tax payers money and value for money is their right . Thus we find many parts of the country resemble Albania most obviously Glasgow for reasons you will no doubt think are ‘swivel eyed’ coming form me. If you want, as you say , more evidence , if you subtracted the Celtic tribal antagonism , the Public sector and dependents , this on state hand outs( over 80% of which are something for nothing still) how many Labour Party voters do you think you have left? How many people disinterestedly think this “ High tax” large state government , is a good idea
I`m not really interested in pig in lipstick Brown`s posture as a Thatcherite or claim to be like her. It is quite clear why he does this and incidental biographical parallels are amusing but no more . Do they both admire the work of Dick Van Dyke ...its not impossible . The supine response of the labour Party shows well how little they are concerned.
Income tax has continued to be replaced by stealth tax true and this process began as far back as Thatcher for doctrinal reasons whereas Blair was trapped by promises he made hence the government by spin and concealment often perpetrated by Brown. The pressure ion him internally to move left though is already building fast.the New Statesman have tuned on him today the Unions are unimpressed and want to be repaid . If brown manages to fight off the claims of his core support I will be surprised whatever his , actually irrelevant , personal views might be , he has changed them before.
In summary your view of politics is too static and anachronistic .It is afar more to do with constituencies of support time lagged paradigms . It is possible to make a case that brown and Thatcher as a sort of contrarian figure picking exercise but I don’t see this gets us far. Of course elements of her Union reform were retained. I have already alluded to the very different attitude they have to property ownership , no I do not agree ...where are the new right to buyers . Income tax should be a lot lower than it is ...( We have overtaken Germany as a statist country...thats better measure)
I like Party Politics . I like Parliament, I am suspicious of government by experts and I value the rich language of disputation Party politics has bequeathed to us . I prefer open partisanship as it shows the architecture of a position more fairly.I `m sure Piper is a big boy and will not burst into tears ant anything I have to say which is not intended with the suffocating solemnity which is another thing I don’t like about the left...( That’s irony Cas)
XX
Well, if the first was a rant, the second attempt, which almost ignored all those inconvenient facts you responded with Liam, was written in the true spirit of JRR Tolkein.
I do hope he wasn't driving as he left. Nice to read a polemic by a Thatcherite that wants to hive off Scotland, refers to the 1970's oil crisis in passing, but seemingly didn't notice the North Sea oil pouring in to the economy. Still it's nice to know she loved her children and was a committed Christian...(God's teeth, what is that all about?) I'm surprised that Newmania didn't refer to that well known established and irrefutable fact that Gordon Brown absolute detests his children. It would help his argument, and the fact that there's no evidence whatsoever to back it up shouldn't get in the way.
This post has been removed by the author.
Thanks Bob - mustering a response but will have to be later.
Well, if the first was a rant, the second attempt, which almost ignored all those inconvenient facts you responded with Liam, was written in the true spirit of JRR Tolkein.
Yes well if you start at Gordon Brown is the same as Margaret Thatcher there is a long way to go sticking to the sane road ....I didn�t �raise� the admittedly irrelevant matter of Gordon Brown�s religion but if it is to be taken as evidence of an underlying similarity with The lady then it is fair to point out the imposture of Brown`s theatrical personal life with some PR hanger on as opposed to the saintly young Margaret who cured many lepers and had a beautiful singing voice ....(?)
. Nice to read a polemic by a Thatcherite that wants to hive off Scotland,
No Scotland wants to hive off Scotland despite the �30 billion budgeted by Mr. Brown for bribing it to stay put . I only say that the English should not be forced to accept a government they do not want during the process . This is a structural Labour problem and they are very well aware of it as you know .
refers to the 1970's oil crisis in passing but seemingly didn't notice the North Sea oil pouring in to the economy.
The one is after and unconnected to the other I was refferring to the beggining of her ,"being amongst us " ,and the oil didn�t stop . It has not stopped today. About �10 billion to the exchequer today (ok much dispute here from the sweaty socks ). About the cost of ID cards say , or the amount at risk over Northern Rock whereby the public finance his regime .Shall we write off Brown`s period then, Major`s ? Andrew Marr made this point in his �History� cough cough, but then he is an ex Independent editor and friend of Polly , Scots and socialist. The natural choice, by the BBC for Brown�s first major interview the natural choice for a political history as well.
Incidentally there is book out with this Brown is Thatch nonsense at its heart by one Simon Lee of Hull Uni. Martin Bright is on about it today .Even he , who claims brown is an Adam Smith man sees an internal tension between his centralising statist instincts and his supposed economic view. I have a different view but I`ll save you The Return of The King .
“The first quote is correct in electoral terms but, as I said , this is as much to do with the rise of the SNP ,the swollen public sector and mass immigration . Which you ignore because it does not fit your picture”
Why is the quote only correct in ‘electoral terms’? What other ‘terms’ were the Economist or I implying? The quote simply points out that the country has changed from when Thatcher was in office so I still don’t see why you’re contesting that or which aspect of it you think I’m ignoring? As for absolute votes one way or the other in England - again I don’t really understand the point. By your logic Thatcher’s mandate in Scotland was never legitimate but I don’t recall much being made of that by Conservatives at the time. The existence of Holyrood impacts this of course but acceptance of the constitutional settlement when it suits you and outrage when it doesn’t is hardly an honourable position.
“the whole of the multi faceted Conservative philosophy that I do not have time for now but is a subtle almost poetic reconciliation between freedom and responsibility preferably arrived at organically and outside the state”
Sorry NM but that doesn’t really mean anything – it’s almost Blairite in its disregard for grammar, avoidance of nouns and unnecessarily obtuse language. Plain English please…
“Of course I am inferring from what you have said but this is to resist the implied centre of gravity you are trying to establish”
I’m not trying to establish anything. The ‘political centre of gravity’ is a tired concept abused too often by commentators and bloggers and not something I would trust many people (let alone myself) to identify with any accuracy.
“You are selectively quoting figures across an abyss and this allows you to prove almost anything by decontextualising to taste”
I’m always quite hostile to the charge of ‘selective quotation’ for a very obvious reason – everybody does it so the charge carries little weight. The point is since this is a reality of debate we should exercise caution over phrases like ‘high tax’ or ‘public expenditure explosion’ since they can be so easily ‘refuted’ in the eyes of the apolitical public. Let’s not start laying claims to absolute accuracy here…
“I can think of many taxes that have gone up or been invented and none that have gone down”
Eh.. Income Tax?
“The pressure on him internally to move left though is already building fast. The New Statesman have tuned on him today the Unions are unimpressed and want to be repaid . If brown manages to fight off the claims of his core support I will be surprised whatever his actually irrelevant personal views might be, he has changed them before.”
This is key and merits a longer response but I’ll just say this – when the Tories attempt to build their case for power on the premise that Labour is ‘on the verge’ of some lunge to the left or that Gordon Brown ‘is just about to’ capitulate to the dinosaurs in his own party they do themselves and the electorate a disservice. The line of attack is flawed because it can (and will) be reduced to the assertion that at the moment there’s actually nothing wrong with them but ‘any minute now, just you wait and see…’ In one form or another that argument has been made for more than a decade so it’s lost any potency it ever had (and Brown getting the Premiership changes nothing other than perhaps to impart a dying breath to it). Success will only come when the Tories learn to campaign on the basis that Labour are bad for the country as they are now.
“In summary your view of politics is too static and anachronistic .It is far more to do with constituencies of support time lagged paradigms.”
I refer the honourable gentleman to my previous answer – plain English please.
“I like Party Politics. I like Parliament, I am suspicious of government by experts and I value the rich language of disputation Party politics has bequeathed to us. I prefer open partisanship as it shows the architecture of a position more fairly.”
It’s clear from your writing you like ‘party politics’ (as distinct from ‘pure’ politics) because the thrust of your argument isn’t factual but interpretive and emotional. It has that tribal root whereby the Labour party aren’t just well-intentioned but mistaken people with different views to you on what serves the country well, you seem to actually believe they’re ‘evil’ ‘calculating’ people intent solely on power and with no concern for the country. Politics aside NM that’s a preposterously adolescent position and one I’ve spent 20 years countering whenever I heard people on the left employing it - labelling Tories as evil or only interested in ‘rich’ people. It’s also inimical to proper dialogue.
As for “I value the rich language of disputation Party politics has bequeathed to us”, this remark, like so many of your comments, prompted me to re-read an old favourite – Orwell’s ‘Politics & the English language’ from 1946 (you can read it here). It’s a eulogy to plain English and something you would do well to read…
Till we clash again.. (it must be Bob’s turn now though?)
L
I thought some of that was a bit cheap.Commendably plain though.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home