Thatcherism With a Human Face - Coursework Example

Is New Labour just Thatcherism with a human face? Introduction While we have had other politicians and thinkers willingly or unwillingly give their name to their ideology in the past such as Leninism or Marxism, we find very few examples of this concept in modern history. One such rare example is the idea of Thatcherism which takes its name from Margaret Thatcher who served as the Prime Minster of Britain from 1979 to 1990 (Gilmour, 1992). Her legacy is an enduring one to say the least and even today a question can be raised as to how the New Labour is just Thatcherism with a human face. It can be shown with the evidence given by various thinkers and political analysts that this statement is certainly true but before the evidence is presented, a definition of Thatcherism and the shape of the New Labour must be understood. What is Thatcherism? Thatcherism is not easy to define since the era of Margaret Thatcher was defined by change and even reversal of policies in many cases. However, in the most general of terms, it is characterised by a reduction in state intervention into the economy, an increased focus on the free market, moves to privatise the ownership of industry, reduction in the power of unions and a decrease in the role of the state as a welfare state. In economic circles, economists such as Friedman and Hayek find support for their ideas with Thatcherism while the policies outlined by Thatcher herself point in this direction as per the speech she gave to the Conservative Party Conference in 1983 where she talked about the reduction in free health services (Thatcher, 1983). Perhaps the best definition of Thatcherism comes from Nigel Lawson who was the Chancellor of the Exchequer for Margaret Thatcher for six years and he reports that Thatcherism can be wrongly defined as anything which Thatcher herself did at any given time. He goes on to say that, “The right definition involves a mixture of free markets, financial discipline, firm control over public expenditure, tax cuts, nationalism, Victorian values (of the Samuel Smiles self-help variety), privatization and a dash of populism (Lawson, 1992, p. 62).” With this definition and the description given above in mind, it becomes easy to see the connections between the policies of Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher while the differences between them reflect the human face of New Labour. Thatcherism with a Human Face The commentary given in Political Quarterly on the Blair government in 2001 made a direct comparison between the policies of Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher. When it came to Mrs. Thatcher, the journal said that Thatcher destroyed the power of the unions and created important new directions for the market in economic terms. The modernisation of Britain came at the hands of Mrs. Thatcher but it was a market modernisation process. Tony Blair also worked for the modernisation process but it was more humanistic by being more inclusive (Political Quarterly, 2001). Having a human face seems to be very important to the present government since social justice as well as a dynamic market system is important to the party as a whole. The idea of a welfare state is still held dear but the delivery of services may be coupled with the idea of competition. Partnerships between the government sector and the private sector are seen as fundamentals for the system to work and instead of focusing on individualism the present situation sees the government focusing on inclusion (Political Quarterly, 2001). The same ideas were voiced by Hall (2005) who with Martin Jacques is the author of an article published in The Observer under the title, ‘Thatcherism with a Human Face’. This article was published on the Sunday before the elections in 1997 and it heavily criticised the government for its leanings towards Thatcherism. However, even in 2005, Hall remained highly critical of the situation when he said that: The welfare state had been Labour’s greatest achievement. It had been savaged and weakened under Mrs. Thatcher. But its wholesale deconstruction was to be New Labour’s historic mission. The two-tier society, corporate greed, and the privatization of need were inevitable corollaries of this process—glossed positively as ‘modernization!’ who could possibly be against it? (Hall, 2005, Pg. 321).” Hall (2005) gives several examples of the words used by New Labour leaders and other luminaries as well as the actions taken by the government that have led to several reminders of the Thatcher era. For example, the liberation of corporations, ignoring the widening social divide, deregulation of labour markets as well as the continued restrictions on trade unions are all signs that New Labour is not very different from Thatcherism. In fact, the divide between the rich and the poor seems to be focal point of the argument made by Hall (2005) since he reports that, “The trend to inequality has grown exponentially, escalating towards American proportions (Hall, 2005, Pg. 323).” He goes on to report that the rich in the UK have a larger share of the country’s post-tax money supply than they have ever had at any time under the government of Mrs. Thatcher. However, this does not take away anything from the human face of the government since the face is all there is to mask the system of government being followed in Britain. Politics in Britain has not changed significantly in the matter it is followed but the art of politics has been used to make it more acceptable to the people. Both Hall (2005) and Du Gay (2002) come to the same conclusion that the new system of government is entrepreneurial in nature and humanistic in its words but the deeds and actions remain rooted in Thatcherism. Du Gay (2002) simply accepts the workings of New Labour as a means by which the government keeps the people in awe using words and euphemisms. For example, competition between service providers is entrepreneurial government while the powers of government are given to the bureaucracy which is called the community. The outcomes of governmental decisions are called the delivery of services, authority is decentralised by something called participatory management and the administrative hand is called the invisible hand of the market. This is not a reinvention of government nor is this a change in the way government functions. It is simply giving old governmental systems a new face and a new polish while everything else remains more or less the same. Therefore, instead of calling the policies of New Labour Neo-Thatcherism, it might be more logical to address them as Managerialism as they are described by Hall (2005) and Du Gay (2002). The economy is being modernised but the task of modernisation is not being done by the government itself since corporations and multinational companies are taking the lead there. The only thing the government can take credit for modernising is the face of the state and the continuation of the policies which it had been given. Heffernan (2000) is even less kind in his evaluation of New Labour since he suggests that the policies of Tony Blair are far closer to the wishes of Mrs. Thatcher than those polices which were held dear by Tony Crosland. Of course there are detractors to the statement and individuals such as Driver and Martell (1998) have suggested that the approach taken by New Labour is very different from Thatcherism but writers such as Rubinstein (2000) have answered their arguments for the cause of New Labour quite sufficiently. Rubinstein suggests that Driver and Martell have exaggerated the differences between New Labour and Old Labour while ignoring continuities which bind them together (Driver and Martell, 2001). It seems that things have not changed as much as the government would like us to believe but those who wish to believe that things have changed can point to the human face and say that there have been substantial changes in how the philosophy of government in the UK is understood to be (Hall, 1998). Conclusion In conclusion it seems that Hall (1999) was certainly saying the truth when he suggested that the policies of New Labour are Thatcherism Mark II because the focus of the government has not shifted much despite the colourful words which have been used to disguise it. The approach to the process of government may have been given an outer shine and a dusting but the policies which were used, respected and enacted by Margret Thatcher to modernise the British economy and the political system have remained more or less intact. It remains to be seen if the human face of Thatcherism will actually affect the skeleton of the government on which it is based but the signs at the present moment do not point towards much change. The forces of globalisation and the processes by which the economies of the world run are certainly pushing the government to keep the same policies as it has in the past and if it keeps them in power with personal charisma and influence it is not something which can be scoffed at. In fact, it is simply good politics. Works Cited Driver, S. and Martell, L. 1998, New Labour: Politics after Thatcherism, Polity Press. Driver, S. and Martell, L. 2001, ‘From Old Labour to New Labour’, Politics, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 47-50 Du Gay, P. 2002, ‘A Common Power to Keep Them All in Awe: A Comment on Governance’, Cultural Values, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 11–27. Du Gay, A. 1998, The Third Way: The Renewal of Democracy, Polity Press. Gilmour, I. 1992, Dancing With Dogma: Britain Under Thatcherism, Simon & Schuster. Hall, S. 1998, ‘The Great Moving Nowhere Show’, Marxism Today, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 9–14. Hall, S. 2005, ‘New Labours Double-shuffle’, Review of Education, Pedagogy & Cultural Studies, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 319-335. Heffernan, R. 2000, New Labour and Thatcherism: Political Change in Britain," Palgrave. Lawson, N. 1992, The View From No. 11: Memoirs of a Tory Radical, Bantam. Political Quarterly, 2001. ‘From Thatcher to Blair’, Political Quarterly, vol. 72, no. 1, pp. 1-5. Rubinstein, D. 2000, ‘A New Look at New Labour’, Politics, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 161–167. Thatcher, M. 1983, ‘Speech to Conservative Party Conference’, [Online] Available at: http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=105454 Read More