How Far Has the Modern Conservative Party Departed from the Thatcherite Agenda - Coursework Example

There is such a thing as society. How far has the Modern Conservative Party departed from the Thatcherite agenda? I. Executive summary This essay argues that Modern Conservative Party, particularly its new Prime Minister, David Cameron has not totally departed from its predecessor, Margaret Thatcher. Though Cameron explained that his “Big Society” to be totally different from Thatcher’s “there is no such thing as society” as it acknowledges the societal ties that makes society interdependent, this paper is in the opinion that such political pronouncement was just to parry the criticism associated with Thatcher’s “New Right”. The departure of Cameron’s “Big Society” from Thatcher’s “New Right” is more on the semantics but many of the principles of its predecessor remain the same. First, Thatcher’s “there is no such thing as society” did not mean the dissolution of social ties that composed society. She herself clarified that the original intent of the statement was distorted beyond recognition. What she meant by “there is no such thing as society” is to diminish dependency on welfare and to encourage individual members of society to help themselves. In effect, it lessens the burden on public expenditures which contributed to the inflation that beset UK’s economy. Thatcher may have just put it in the wrong way but the intent and purpose of her statement was to strengthen industry by enabling society’s individual members. In effect, Cameron’s “Big Society” is just the same with Thatcherism when it intends cut back public expenditures (though explaining that he is just returning it to 2007 level). It only differs in a way that it encouraged public engagement and volunteerism and by putting up a Big Society fund of ?200M to enhance societal capability (Channel4.com 2011). With regard to the economy, Cameron also adopts the free market system which is precisely what Thatcher asserted despite public criticism during her time. Cameron’s economic policy pronouncements also do not subscribe to Keynesian inflationary measure of pump priming the economy through increased public expenditure. It is only his method that differs from Thatcher because he intends to cut public expenditure which Thatcher was opulent during her term. II. The Conservative party and its ideology The Conservative Party used to be known as Tories that dated back in 1678. It only assumed its present name Conservative Unionist Party in 1912 after it allied with the Liberal Party. Its dominant ideology in the early 20th century was One Nation Conservatism, which was to unite the varying sectors of society (Heywood 2007). Among the esteemed ideologues of the Party was Edmund Burke. Burke was a follower of Adam Smith and his market economy whom Thatcher herself acknowledged to have influenced her liberal economic policy. During the late 19th century, the Conservative Party agreed for a greater representation of the middle class in the parliament. This was contained in the Tamworth Manifesto which was the fundamental political belief of the new Conservative Party. Business also supported the Conservative Party with its coalition with the Liberal Party which made the Party of industry and commerce (Ingle 2008). III. The Thatcherite Agenda: The New Right (1979-1990) Before Margaret Thatcher assumed as the Prime Minister of UK in 1979, UK had been experiencing high unemployment rate under a series of trade union strikes which the media dubbed the “Winter of Discontent” because the Labour led government implemented a freeze on the pay increase of the workers to control the lingering inflation of 20% (Hall and Jacques 1983). Upon assumption of office, Margaret Thatcher implemented her policy programs which are popularly known as “The New Right”. The Thatcherite Agenda was characterised by neo-liberal policy of a market oriented economy and neoconservative policy which emphasises the traditional Tory values of One Nation Conservatism, national interest, law and order. Consistent with her market oriented economic policy; she curbed the traditional prerogatives of trade union to hold strikes (by holding them accountable of the loss during labour disruption) and prevented the artificial rise of wages which contributed to the lingering inflation and inefficiency of UK industries (Gamble 1994). There is no such thing as society Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s leadership is not however without criticism. Despite her admirable leadership, she was criticised of her insensitivity encapsulated by her phrase “there is no such thing as society” which was a part of her statement that reads; “I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand 'I have a problem, it is the Government’s job to cope with it’ … and so they are casting their problems upon society, and who is society? There are individual men and women and there are families, and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then after our neighbour … and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations” . . . “There is no such thing as society” (Moore 2010). In her later years, Mrs. Thatcher lamented that her intention was distorted beyond recognition that she was taken out of context (Moore 2010). While misconstrued, the above statement was only reflective of her economic policy of a market oriented economy where a strong industry will enable individuals/workers to better help themselves and become less dependent to the government. In effect, this will lessen public expenditure and help curb inflation. Though lacking in subtleties, she only meant less government intervention and less dependency on welfare (Hall and Jacques 1983). Her intent however was misconstrued by her critiques by slanting its meaning that in order to promote efficiency that will strengthen business, the social ties that makes up society interdependent has to be dissolved thus making her unpopular. Its contribution to the failure of Keynesian consensus Prior and during Thatcher’s term, UK economy has been characterised by stagflation where inflation and unemployment rate is high coupled with a slow economic growth rate. In addressing stagflation in UK, both anti-inflationary and anti-recession measures had to be implemented which is not possible under a Keynesian solution because of its inflationary effect which contributed to the problem of rising prices. Instead of merely pump priming the economy which was the traditional solution of Keynesian economics, Thatcher used monetarism, supply side and new classical economics as a solution to UK’s stagflation. Money supply was controlled by the government, coupled with encouraging production to lower prices and more emphasis on how household allocates their resources more than focusing on the macroeconomic tool of the state which is typically characterized by increased public expenditure. These new economic measures implemented by Thatcher contributed to the failure of Keynesian consensus. IV. The difficulty of the Thatcherite Agenda beyond the 90s Perhaps the biggest difficulty of the Thatcherite Agenda is her rising unpopularity of being stereotyped as “uncaring”. In addition, Thatcher’s continued stay in office as Prime Minister is no longer tenable because her Cabinet will no longer support her in the next elections (BBC News). V. David Cameron: there is such thing as society To paraphrase David Cameron when he exegetes that his regime would be different from a fellow party mate Margaret Thatcher, he elaborated that he recognises that “there is such thing as society”. He even went as far as criticising Thatcher’s “there is no such thing as society” agenda by critiquing it as; “Which knows the price of everything and the value of nothing? This is not just socially destructive; it's economically inefficient too. Because when you attack and undermine the institutions that are the foundations of our society – family, neighbourhood, community – all you do is create extra costs for the state to pick up. These are the costs of social failure, the failure to recognise social value as well as economic value the failure to recognise that there is such a thing as society, it's just not the same thing as the state” (Conservatives.com 2008). Prime Minister David Cameron instead pushes forth his ideology of “big society” where the societal ties which were perceived to be destroyed with Thatcher’s pursuit of economic efficiency will be restored. He promotes this by encouraging volunteerism where people can trust strangers contrary to Thatcher’s perceived harsh individualism where one will be left to fend for his or her own. He reinforces this idea with “our philosophy, therefore, is one that understands social value and seeks to enhance it” (Moore 2010). a. Economic policy In principle, David Cameron still adopts the market oriented economy which was similar to Thatcher. With regard to taxation however, his economic platform is committed to reducing direct taxation. Just like Thatcher, he pushes forth the idea of having a “dynamic and competitive economy” whose proceeds can be enjoyed by society through tax reduction and public investment. b. The big society “The big society” is the core of Prime Minister David Cameron policy direction and political philosophy but he did not provide an exact meaning of his “big society” ideology. Instead, he provided idea of what it intends to do and how it will achieve its goals. He quipped that "we do need a social recovery to mend the broken society and to me, that's what the Big Society is all about” (BBC News 2011). This meant more people taking more responsibility in society. Just like Thatcherism, it also encourages less government intervention in addressing society’s problems but rather promotes more public engagement to solve the same. His “big society” shared the same view with Thatcher’s “New Right” that the state is an inefficient service provider; that too much dependence on welfare stunts the competitiveness of industry. But unlike Thatcher, he does not intend to privatise sectors of public service and utility but only intends to cut down its expenditure. Cameron’s “the big society” also believes that UK should also submit to the market to make it efficient and competitive. In essence, Cameron’s “the big society” can be summed up by his statement “government is not just making cuts, sitting back and saying 'let's hope society steps forward' (BBC News 2011). c. Welfare reform It is in welfare reform that David Cameron departed from Thatcher’s “New Right”. For Cameron, any proceeds from growth will be divided through reduction of taxes and increased public investment and does not include welfare as part of his reform. Cameron’s program of government is bent on reducing expenditures in welfare benefits. It is worth noting that even during economic affluence, Cameron’s government has no intention of increasing the budget of welfare. d. Social policy Cameron’s social policy also differed from Thatcher that it is expanded to increased public engagement and volunteerism in addition to Thatcher’s self-help. Whereas the meaning of Thatcher’s “there is no such thing as society” was misconstrued as promoting individualism and cutting of society’s interdependency, Cameron’s social policy encourages increased “trust with strangers” as volunteers will be filling some sectors of the public service. It is however criticised as a way of cutting costs by filling public sectors with free volunteers. VI. Conclusion Coming from the same Conservative Party and fresh from the recent financial crisis, it is not surprising that the core belief of Cameron’s “big society” is hedged on cutting cost on public expenditures not only to save cost but also to fight inflation. But no matter how much Cameron sugar coats his “big society” against the bitter criticism of being associated with Thatcherism, Thatcher’s residual “New Agenda” can be still found in Cameron’s policy direction. Perhaps the idea of promoting social value and societal ties that “there is such a thing as society” is just a political stratagem of the Conservative Party to dissociate itself from an unpopular figure such as Thatcher. Yet, this does not mean abandoning its sound economic policy because it can still be found in Cameron’s program of government if it will be stripped of its political semantics. They came from the same political mould in the first place. Prime Minister David Cameron’s “big society” can also hardly be classified as a departure from “Thatcherism” because it is more ideologically similar than different from Thatcherism. Minus the idea of the existence or non-existence of “society”, both subscribed to the idea of the necessity to turn to free market to increase efficiency and competitiveness. Both believed that UK’s industry should be strengthened to improve its citizens’ standard of living and become less dependent to the government. There may be difference in the nuances of its implementation such as Thatcher’s privatisation of public utility compared to Cameron’s public volunteerism to the public sector which was sugar coated as an encouragement of social ties and interdependency of society. Considering their similarities, it is more appropriate to categorise Cameron’s “big society” as an improvement of Thatcherism, rather than a departure from it. So the bigger question now is whether this seemingly difference of Cameron’s volunteerism from Thatcherism would work in solving society’s economic and social ills or not. The Royal Society of Arts like the idea but is adamant if such initiative is realistic considering that Cameron only gave himself six years to realise it. This hesitation however is not without basis. Public engagement and volunteerism is ideal but whether its citizens will heed or not is a different thing. This requires a perception and cultural change for the individual member of society to be motivated to engage with the government for societal productivity and solidarity. According to Royal Society of Arts, "this is a major cultural challenge. Levels of participation in Britain have remained static despite government initiatives. Values surveys suggest that British people are relatively fearful of strangers and relatively authoritarian in outlook, so the culture change requires a reframing of our relationships to ourselves, to each other and to the state."For the big society to take root, we need to invest more time and energy making sure that the forms of participation and engagement called for as part of the big society are supported by formal and informal adult education. Social productivity requires that people are both supported and challenged" (Stratton 2011). It is not enough that the government spells it out through its policy but equally important, it should also put in place the enabling mechanisms to make such policy direction a reality. Bibliography BBC News UK POLITICS (nd). Big Society is my mission, says David Cameron. [online]. London: BBC News. Available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12443396 [Accessed 02 January 2012) BBC News (nd). 1990: Thatcher quits as Prime Minister. London: BBC News online http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/22/newsid_2549000/2549189.stm[Accessed 02 January 2012). Cameron, David (12 May 2008). Speech to CPRE on Local Communities. Conservatives. Online. Available at http://www.conservatives.com/News/Speeches/2008/05/David_Cameron_Speech_to_CPRE_on_Local_Communities.aspx [Accessed 02 January 2012) Channel 4 (14 February 2011). David Cameron outlines mission for successful Big Society. Online. Available at http://www.channel4.com/news/david-cameron-outlines-mission-for-successful-big-society [Accessed 02 January 2012) Gamble, Andrew (1994). The Free Economy and the Strong State: The Politics of Thatcherism.Palgrave Macmillan Hall, Ed Stuart and Jacques, Martin (1983). The Politics of Thatcherism. Lawrence and Wisehart Heywood, Andrew (2007). Political Ideologies (4th Edition). Palgrave Macmillan. Ingle, Stephen (2008). The British Party System: an introduction (4th Edition). Routledge Moore, Charles (27 September 2010). No Such Thing as Society: a good time to ask what Margaret Thatcher really meant [online]. London:BBC. Available at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/charlesmoore/8027552/No-Such-Thing-as-Society-a-good-time-to-ask-what-Margaret-Thatcher-really-meant.html [Accessed 02 January 2012). Stratton, Allegra (31 December 2011). Before we build Cameron's big society, we'll need to know what it is. London: The Guardian. Online http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/dec/31/big-society-david-cameron-royal-society-of-arts-uk [Accessed 02 January 2012). Read More