Last modified: 03/12/2018Tweet
This document does contain fairly detailed information on the NEW RIGHT but it is not geared directly to the requirements of the new AS and Advanced Level Government and Politics Specifications which require students to focus on particular themes and tensions within Conservatism. However I hope that students will be able to use some of this information as they focus more directly on the specification requirements.
New links added December 2017. I have not included any discussion of Robert Nozick in this document but you can find useful information on this political thought here and if you then look to the right of the YouTube screen you will find several additional links. Also click here and here and here for information on Ayn Rand
Further very useful links on Ayn Rand added December 2018. Click here for a podcast interview [45 mins] from 1979 and here for an excellent film by Adam Curtis tracing Ayn Rand's career and influence on US politics to the present day
New link added November 2017: Conservatism, Ideology, Economic Inequality and Poverty
Following Margaret Thatcher's enforced resignation as Conservative Prime Minister and Leader of the Conservative Party in 1990 the Conservative party has subsequently been led by John Major, William Hague, Iain Duncan Smith, Michael Howard, David Cameron and Theresa May . Students will need to assess the extent to which the Conservatives may have distanced itself from New Right ideology since 1990 as well as the extent to which the Labour Party also espoused elements of Thatcherite ideology especially under the leadership of Tony Blair but also to a lesser extent under Gordon Brown . Ed Miliband did seek to distance the Labour Party from the Blairite "New Labour" approach and this has certainly continued under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn. You may now click here for a new document [Conservatism, Ideology, Economic Inequality and Poverty] which covers some recent developments in the Conservative Party but I have not yet addressed more recent developments in the Labour Party.
[ It may be noted that there are some theorists who argue that neo-liberalism is itself an ill-defined term which certainly cannot reasonably be used to analyse Blairism but my own view, for what it is worth is that neoliberalism, if used with care, is a very useful concept and that elements of neoliberalism can be found within the Blairite project even if this does not tell the full story.]
A Beginner's Guide to Neoliberalism: series of podcasts from the New Economics Foundation [nef] Via Soundcloud.com Very useful new link added September 2015.
A Brief History of Neoliberalism [ 5 Part video series by David Harvey which lasts about 40 minutes in total] NEW link added February 2018
David Harvey, Donald Trump and Post-Neoliberalism [20 minute video discussion] NEW link added February 2018
David Harvey and Contradictions of Capitalism.;[15 minute video] NEW link added February 2018
Naomi Klein and Global Neoliberalism [15 minute video] NEW link added February 2018
A short history of privatisation in the UK 1979-2012 New link added July 2017
George Monbiot's critical assessment of James McGill Buchanan and Public Choice Theory. New Link added July 2016
George Monbiot's critical assessment of Neoliberalism New Link added July 2016
For much of the post 2nd World War
period the Conservative Party was led and dominated by so-called Right
Progressives or One Nation Conservatives such as R. Butler, I. Macleod, H.
Macmillan and Q. Hogg who harked back to the Disraeli tradition of One Nation
Conservatism and were prepared to accept pragmatically the expansion of
state activity ushered in via by the 1945-51 Labour government programmes
involving selective nationalisation, expansion of the welfare state, Keynesian
economic policies and tripartite decision making. Once in Government the One
Nation Conservatives broadly retained these Labour programmes initiatives while
emphasising that the most profitable sectors of the economy would remain in
private control and supporting the continuation of economic inequality
because of their belief that private property was a pre-requisite for liberty
and that capitalist economic inequality could best promote economic growth and
rising living standards. However they also recognised that full employment and
the expansion of the welfare state were necessary to improve health, housing,
education and to reduce poverty if the
Consequently it has been suggested that from the late 1940s to the end of the 1960s a bipartisan political consensus existed between Labour and Conservative parties in relation to the most important areas of government policy although the extent of political consensus should not be overstated because the Labour and Conservative parties did of course disagree over important details of policy.
However even in the era of the post-war consensus many Conservatives continued to hold classical liberal pro-market or traditional Tory views and especially from the 1970s onwards the views of the Right Progressives were challenged by the neo-liberal strand of New Right thought associated especially with the theoretical ideas of academics such as Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman and with their development in the UK in pro-Conservative think-tanks such as the Institute of Economic Affairs , the Adam Smith Institute and the Centre for Policy Studies. Among the first modern UK Conservative politicians to espouse elements of New Right thinking were Enoch Powell and Keith Joseph although it was only when Mrs Thatcher,[ having become leader of the Conservative Party in 1975 ]consolidated her hold on power in the early 1980s that New Right ideas became more influential in government.
Click here for some interesting YOUTUBE clips of Milton Friedman expounding his political ideas.
here for a recent critique [August 2010] of the economics of neo-liberalism
here for recent critique of Privatisation in the
Mrs Thatcher and her supporters were very critical of the Right Progressive tendency which dominated the Conservative Party during the period of the so-called post war consensus prior to Mrs. Thatcher's ascendancy. The Thatcherites claim that successive Conservative governments of 1951-1964 more or less accepted the policies and institutional frameworks developed by the Labour governments of 1945-1951 which had resulted in the so-called post-war "Butskellite consensus between Labour and Conservative governments from 1945 until perhaps 1970.
to the Thatcherites the Right Progressive Conservatives had encouraged the
growth of an excessively bureaucratic state; they had helped to destroy
individual initiative because of their acceptance of high rates of income
taxation which reduce incentives to work, save and invest; they had
permitted the growth of an expensive, inefficient Welfare States which
create exactly the kind of dependency culture which prevents individuals from
helping themselves possibly leading to the development of a so-called
Underclass; they supported economically inefficient nationalised industries at
the expense of the private sector and they relied on flawed Keynesian
techniques of macroeconomic management. Their reliance on tripartite or
corporatist bargaining processes undermined the ability of government itself to
manage the political process. In effect, because Conservative governments
between 1951-64 and 1970-74 had made no serious attempts to reverse the Labour
policies of 1945-51, subsequent Labour administrations of 1964-1970 and
1974-1979 were able to push the
Keynesian methods of demand management would be replaced by an emphasis monetarist theories emphasising the importance of the control of the money supply as a means of controlling inflation and market based supply side policies would be introduced which were designed to increase the overall efficiency of the private sector of the economy which was to lead to increased supply of goods and services and rising living standards. These market based supply side policies would include measures to restrict the size of the public sector so that additional resources would be available to increase private sector production, the privatisation of nationalised industries, the deregulation of the private sector, the reduction of rates of taxation [especially income tax rates ]to increase financial incentives, the reduction of trade union power , the restriction of social security benefits as a means of restricting the development of what the New Right considered to be a welfare dependent underclass and the introduction of quasi-markets into the health and education services.
Yet it must be remembered that the processes of government are so complex that it is impossible for any government to be ruled solely by ideology. and that in practice the Thatcherite governing methods were strongly influenced by pragmatism as well as ideology. Thus despite the New Right opposition to Keynesian ideas and its support for monetarist principles these monetarist principles were effectively abandoned by the Conservative government in the early 1980s and the Conservatives reverted in practice to more Keynesian methods especially when attempting to engineer pre-election economic booms and despite the New Right's commitment to reduced real levels of government spending Mrs. Thatcher's Conservative governments actually presided over increased real government spending partly because higher levels of unemployment necessitated higher levels of social security spending [although actual real benefit levels were restricted] and because it was clearly impossible politically to reduce government spending on the NHS , the police and the military . Not for nothing have cartoonists depicted Mrs. Thatcher standing on the academic tomes of Hayek and Friedman but reading the reports of political marketing advisers Saatchi and Saatchi.
Dimensions of Neo- Liberalism
It has been pointed out that the political thought of the New Right actually consists of two separate elements which are sometimes complementary and sometimes contradictory:
An economic liberal element which emphasises both the importance of individual freedom and responsibility and the superiority of the market mechanism as a means of resource allocation which in turn means that government intervention in economy and society should be limited and confined to the creation of the conditions in which the private sector of the economy can operate most efficiently;
A neo-conservative element which "involves a traditionalist reaction against progressive liberal permissiveness." Thus, neo-Conservatives are likely to call for a reassertion of traditional values in relation to issues surrounding the nature of the family, the output of the mass media, the education system, religion, law and order, controls over the consumption of alcohol, tobacco and illegal drugs, defence of national sovereignty [for example in relation to the EU], the protection of the environment , calls for stricter immigration controls and opposition to the growth of multi-culturalism in UK society..
From the check list of issues provided at the beginning of this document it is clear that within the New Right considerable tensions are likely to exist as between economic or market liberals and neo-Conservatives such that whereas neo-Conservatives would support government intervention in the form of planning controls to protect the environment, immigration controls to protect the "British way of life", censorship to defend public morals and legislation to limit the consumption of alcohol, tobacco and. especially hard drugs, for market liberals , these are matters which can be left primarily to the market mechanism.
The neo-liberal dimension of New Right ideology involves support fore the core principles of classical liberalism: most notably individualism, laissez faire and minimal government intervention in society involving the securing of social order and the maintenance of the conditions necessary for the market mechanism to operate effectively. In the neo-liberal view since individuals are the best judges of their own self-interest they should be allowed to pursue their own self interest both in economic affairs and in their own personal lives with limited regulation by the state.
- They believed that the growth of the public sector had arisen to a considerable extent because successive governments, both Labour and Conservatives , had increased public spending partly to placate powerful interest groups, most especially the public sector trade unions and professional associations but also in an attempt to "buy votes" to secure electoral victory. The outcome was a situation of "government overload" whereby government was unable to meet its increased commitments without damage to the private sector of the economy.
- The growth of the public sector had starved the private sector of resources which resulted in low private investment and reduced international competitiveness and in slow growth of exports and increased imports which obviously would result in balance of payments problems.
- They pointed out that the growth of the private sector required higher taxation and/or increased government borrowing but believed that higher taxation undermined incentives to work, save and invest and that increased government borrowing was potentially inflationary.
- They argued that the Keynesian approach to the macroeconomic management was misguided primarily because attempts to maintain high levels of employment via high levels of government spending and /or reduced taxation had resulted in higher rates of inflation which in turn would lead to more unemployment, for example due to the decline in competitiveness caused by the higher rate of inflation. [The New Right critique of Keynesian economics raises some difficult issues of economic theory which cannot be considered here in any detail. Essentially New Right theorists were influenced by the monetarist theories of economists such as Milton Friedman who argued that inflation was to be controlled via control of the money supply and that any attempt to run an economy at less than the natural rate of unemployment would inevitably result in accelerating inflation.]
- It was expensive which implied high rates of taxation which would seriously erode incentives to work, save and invest and hence reduce the long term efficiency of the economy and ultimately the living standards of the population as a whole. There is a strong similarity here between neo-liberal beliefs and the functionalist theory of social stratification.
- Its organisation was dominated by remote, unapproachable Welfare State professionals such as doctors, teachers and social workers who provided the kinds of services which they considered to be necessary and not necessarily the services which were best for the society as a whole. Public sector Trade unions were also very powerful within the Welfare State and this could lead to over-manning and to economic inefficiency.
- Some Welfare State Social security provision was essential but it should be concerned with the relief of absolute rather than relative poverty. For the neo-liberals , economic inequality was both desirable and inevitable [as in the Functionalist theory of social stratification] and this implied that some relative poverty was also desirable and inevitable since in an economically unequal society there would inevitably be some people receiving lower than average incomes .
- The taxation and social security system , taken as a whole, had been an instrument of redistribution from the rich to the poor but the effects had been to weaken economic incentives for the rich and the comfortably off which ultimately resulted in reduced living standards for the poor. Egalitarian taxation and social security policies resulted in increased equality via a levelling down of incomes whereas what was required were policies which might increase inequality but would also increase economic growth and enable some of the financial benefits of economic growth to "trickle down" to the poor. Furthermore it was argued by Professor Laffer that once taxation rates reached a relatively high level individuals would adopt various legal methods to reduce their taxation bills so that higher rates of taxation actually resulted in reduced tax revenues and taxation revenues could be increased by reducing rates of taxation. He demonstrated his theory with the so-called Laffer Curve which , however, some economists cynically derided although others certainly accept its validity. For example in his study "The State We're in  Will Hutton argued strongly against the Laffer curve theory but a recent Times article supports it. Debates surrounding the possible disincentive effects of high income taxation received increasing coverage in the wake of the Coalition decision to reduce the highest rate of income tax from 50P to 45p. Click here for some additional information.
- The Social Security system had also been abused by many welfare recipients who were claiming benefits to which they were not actually entitled and the system was helping to create a dependency culture in which welfare recipients came to depend more on State "hand outs " than on their own initiative which ,according especially to Charles Murray, was leading to the development of an increasingly unemployable underclass of welfare dependants .Click here for a critique of the notion of the dependency culture from
economist Ha-Joon Chang. [[NEW link added January 2013] Cambridge
According to Neo-Liberals the over extended Welfare State had undermined the potential roles of private companies, charities and families in the provision of welfare. The New Right wished therefore wished to shift the mix of Welfare Pluralism away from state provision towards private commercial, charitable and informal provision by families , friends and neighbours. As a result in the Thatcherite era:
- individuals were encouraged via preferential tax treatment to take out private pensions and private health insurance;
- the private education and health sectors expanded;
- large numbers of council houses were sold relatively cheaply to sitting tenants;
- services previously provided by Local Authorities such as old peoples' homes and home help services for the elderly, and hospital and school cleaning and catering services were increasingly provided by commercial , profit- making companies to whom Local Authorities now merely awarded contracts and then regulated the performance of the private sector companies;
- the Conservatives' Community Care initiative resulted in more elderly, disabled and mentally ill people being cared for by their own families.
The net effect of these changes was to reduce the size of the government welfare sector below what it would otherwise have been and hence to reduce the cost of welfare to the government which among other things should have facilitated reduced levels of taxation, especially income taxation.
New Right supporters of these initiatives argued also that they resulted in the reduction of the monopoly power of public sector providers and that commercial profit making companies could provide services more efficiently than could Local Authorities; that Care in the Community was preferable to long stays in hospitals or old peoples' homes and that the expansion of private health care, education, housing and pensions would enable government to spend more money providing services for those who could not afford private services.
Critics argued, conversely that commercial profit making companies would reduce the quality of services provided in the interests of greater profit; that the Community Care initiative was designed primarily to save government money while putting an excessive burden of care onto families, especially their female members and that as private healthcare, private education and private housing expanded, only a residual , poorly funded public sector would be available to meet the needs of those who could not afford private provision.
This process of residualisation of State Welfare implies that comfortably off individuals would increasingly own their own homes, rely upon private education or at least upon state schools in more prosperous areas (combined with their own additional expenditure on educational resources) and rely upon private health care where necessary and upon private pensions to supplement the increasingly inadequate state pension. Meanwhile, the poor would be obliged to rely upon run down council housing, local schools which despite their hard work find it difficult to provide a good education for local, mainly working class children, on a health service short of resources resulting in long waiting lists and on state pensions which fail to provide adequate living standards in old age.
Click here for a recent edition of Radio Four's Analysis entitled "The Deserving and the Undeserving Poor"
New Right supporters are committed supporters of the market mechanism as an effective means of resource allocation and they have also supported the introduction of so-called quasi-markets into government health and education services. In the case of education policy it is clear that parts of the 1988 Education Reform Act were influenced by New Right thinking.
By the late 1970s critics of the trade unions in all political parties argued increasingly that the trade unions had accumulated too much power. They had defeated proposed legislation of both Labour and Conservative Governments to curtail their powers [the 1969 In Place of Strife Whitepaper and the 1971 Industrial Relations Act]; the 1970-1974 Conservative Government had been faced with major strikes and it was at least arguable that the National Union of Mineworkers had brought down the Heath Government. Once Labour returned to power in 1974 the Trade unions were involved in the construction of the Social Contract [which according to some showed their excessive influence over Labour governments and according to others showed the exact opposite] and the so-called Winter of Discontent was an important factor in Labour's General Election defeat of 1979.
It was widely believed also that the trade unions were at least partly responsible for the relatively slow growth of the UK economy: restrictive trade practices inhibited attempts to increase economic efficiency; even if statistical data showed that the UK was not especially strike prone by comparison with its main industrial competitors ,strikes resulted in industrial and social dislocation out of all proportion with the actually fairly low number of working days lost through strikes and the UK's reputation for industrial militancy was believed by some to be a factor which discouraged foreign investment and fuelled occasional runs on the £.
According to the New Right therefore it was essential to devise policies to weaken the powers of the trade unions and this was achieved by the introduction of several restrictive trade union laws and by the high levels of unemployment in the 1980s which obviously restricted trade union bargaining power while the defeat of the National Union of Miners strike in 1984-5 represented an important symbolic defeat for militant trade unionism as a whole.
For theorists of the New Right, the Trade Unions were considered to be too powerful in the 1960s and 1970s but their power was certainly reined back as a result of Conservative government policies introduced in the 1980s . However we must not automatically accept the New Right analysis of trade union power at face value since there are also other important analyses of trade union power.
- Thus for Pluralists, the power of the Trade Unions is limited by the existence of many other pressure groups which means that the distribution of political power is relatively widely and evenly distributed.
- For Marxists, the power of the Trade Unions is even more limited because in capitalist societies political power is held mainly by the Capitalist Class, even if indirectly.
- According to the supporters of the theory of Corporatism, government decision making especially in the 1960s and 1970s in the UK was dominated by Government itself operating with business interests and the Trade Unions which implied that the Trade Unions did have rather more power than suggested in Pluralist and Marxist theories but less power than suggested in New Right theory.
It has been said that the ideology of the New Right contains a combination of neo-liberal and neo-conservative elements which are in some respects complementary and mutually reinforcing but in other respects generate tension and contradiction within New Right ideology. As stated above the key elements of neo-liberal ideology are the defence of individual rationality and individual freedom , defence of laissez-faire in economic affairs, defence of economic inequality as natural, desirable and inevitable, rejection of Keynesian methods of macroeconomic management due to their ineffectiveness in dealing with simultaneous inflation and unemployment and opposition to high government spending especially on social security.
Contrastingly the neo-conservative dimension within New Right ideology is similar in several respects to traditional conservatism and similar in some respects also to One Nation conservatism. Neo-conservatives are critical of what they see as the excessive individualism implied by neo-liberalism. Whereas classic liberals believe strongly in individual rationality and argue therefore in favour of the maximum degree of individual freedom which is compatible with the freedom of others, the neo conservative accepts the traditional conservative’s more pessimistic view of human nature which suggests that individuals are not always entirely rational and that they must learn to conform to the tried and trusted traditional norms and values of their society which are to be inculcated via the family, the church and the education system. Furthermore governments have a very important role to play in the defence of the nation and the maintenance of internal social order. Whereas classic liberals are all in favour of free individualistic decision making, conservatives suggest that this kind of individualism is a recipe for near anarchy and that individual freedom, albeit limited, can best be guaranteed via respect for traditional norms, values and institutions.
Neo-Conservatives support the maintenance or at most only gradual change in the existing social order which implies support for traditional sources of authority, traditional institutions and traditional values. They are therefore likely to be supporters of strong but limited government, the Monarchy and the Aristocracy, the Church, the traditional family and traditional education. They claim that traditional social patterns which have stood the test of time must have done so because they have been socially beneficial so that radical change is clearly undesirable.
This neo-conservative support
for traditional authority and only gradual social change leads them to support
traditional approaches to law and order involving "appropriate"
punishment rather than leniency; support for the traditional nuclear family
involving support for traditional gender roles and opposition to divorce,
abortion, single parenthood and same sex relationships; support for traditional
religious beliefs and for respect for teacher authority within schools;
opposition to "excessive " portrayal of sex and violence in the mass
media and to drug abuse. Much of the neo-conservative support for traditional
values in general may be linked to their opposition to the liberal
permissiveness of attitudes which they believe have become widespread in
The neo-conservative support for traditional social order also encourages them to espouse what Andrew Heywood calls an “insular nationalism.” Their desire to protect what they see as British or even English culture leads them to oppose increased immigration and the spread of multiculturalism not because they are racists in the sense of believing that one “race” [remember the important distinctions between "race " and ethnicity] is superior to another but on the grounds that increased immigration and the growth of multiculturalism will dilute British culture and may result eventually in open racial and ethnic conflict. Furthermore they are likely also to adopt “Eurosceptic” positions critical of closer links with the EU and to oppose globalisation on the grounds that it will ultimately undermine the importance of the nation state.
Neo-conservatives see no need for changes in existing patterns of social and economic inequality. Some may continue to defend the remnants of the traditional aristocratic landed class and remember fondly an alleged golden age when the aristocracy symbolised British values and could be relied upon to defend the interests of the employees on the basis of “noblesse oblige” while the employees themselves could be relied upon to defer happily to their social superiors. Also as in the case of Roger Scruton [The Meaning of Conservatism 2001] they may regard equality of opportunity as an essentially meaningless idea on the grounds that since differences in academic ability are mainly genetically determined, it is pointless to provide opportunities to those who are incapable of taking them. [A very pessimistic view in my opinion.]
There are ways in which neo-liberal and neo- conservative ideologies complement each other. Both strands of New Right ideology accept the existence of a basically capitalist system and its resultant economic inequalities and oppose excessive expansion of state expenditure on welfare and it has been argued, most notably by Andrew Gamble, that the New Right ideology represents a combination of neo liberal support for the free market combined with neo-conservative support for the strong, authoritarian state which is necessary to make free market economics effective. Thus in order to increase the scope of the free market a strong state is necessary for several reasons:
However there are also tensions within New Right ideology.
A very significant Marxist analysis of the nature of Thatcherism has been provided by Stuart Hall in his article entitled "The Great Moving Right Show. He agrees that Thatcherism contains both Neo-Liberal and Neo-Conservative elements much as have been described above but claims that the reasons why Thatcherite ideology proved popular with working class voters are linked with the failure of social democratic institutions to defend working class interests in the 1960s and 1970s , a failure which , from a Marxist point of view ,is inevitable.
Thus, according to Stuart Hall it is true that Keynesian methods of demand management failed to halt the growth of unemployment in the 1970s; true that the Welfare State failed to alleviate relative poverty; true that hospital waiting lists were lengthening; true that the education system had failed significantly to increase equality of opportunity; and true that increasing numbers of working class people were fearful of increasing crime in their area. Mrs. Thatcher's success was to focus on the limitations of social democracy and then to claim that the solutions to the above problems can be found in the rejection of social democracy and the acceptance of the ideology of the New Right which Hall summarises in the phrase "Authoritarian Populism": that is: the New Right taps into real popular discontent with social democracy and proposes solutions associated with Neo-Liberalism/Neo-Conservatism which are in several respects Authoritarian
In the Gramscian Marxist terms favoured by Stuart Hall the New Right ideology can certainly be seen as a variant of ruling class ideology designed to secure the hegemony of the capitalist class but it is important to note that Gramsci saw the achievement of hegemony as containing both material and ideological aspects
. According to Stuart Hall it is the fact that the ideology of the New Right draws on real popular discontent with then real limitation of social democracy which gives the New Right ideology particular force. For Marxists , of course, the hope is that the recognition of the limitations of social democracy and subsequently of New Right ideology itself would lead eventually to the transition to Socialism, a hope which 30 years after the publication of Stuart Hall's article still seems a long way from realisation.
Click here for Stuart Hall's The Great Moving Right Show
Click here for Stuart Hall's Gramsci and Us
Interested students who require amore detailed consideration of the concept of Authoritarian Populism [and indeed all aspects of Thatcherism] could consult "Thatcherism" [Bob Jessop, Kevin Bonnett, Simon Bromley and Tom Ling : Polity Press 1988]
I have tried above to describe the key elements of Neo-Liberalism and Neo-Conservatism which are combined in the Thatcherite version of New Right ideology. All ideologies may be criticised from other ideological positions and I provide an outline below of some of the ideological criticisms of New Right ideology which have been made mainly from a broadly socialist perspective although some of these criticisms would be accepted to some extent by some liberals and moderate conservatives while of course New Right theorists themselves would reject these criticisms.
For much of the post-war period in the era of the so-called post war consensus both Labour and Conservative governments attempted to use Keynesian policies of macroeconomic management to maintain high levels of employment. Essentially it was argued that unemployment was caused mainly by a shortfall of aggregate monetary demand and that this aggregate monetary demand could be increased by a combination of fiscal and monetary measures [increases in government spending, reductions in taxation, reduced interest rates and increases in the money supply] which would have the effects of reducing unemployment. However by the 1970s it came to be argued by monetarist economists that Keynesian economic policies could only reduce unemployment as far as the so-called natural rate of unemployment and that any attempts to reduce unemployment below its natural rate would lead only to accelerating inflation. This was a view which was accepted by James Callaghan in a speech in 1976 [apparently written largely by his son-in law, the economics journalist Peter Jay] and led the Labour government to reduce its reliance on Keynesian methods.
It is then generally argued that Conservative governments under Mrs Thatcher distanced themselves even further from Keynesian methods and based their economic theories much more on monetarist policies embodied in the so-called Medium Term Financial Strategy which involved 4 yearly targets for government spending, government borrowing [as measured by the PSBR i.e. the public sector borrowing requirement], and the money supply although even by the early 1980s it was being suggested the the Conservatives were actually adopting a more pragmatic approach to economic policy and adhering less strictly to the dictates of monetarist theory.
Whatever the complexities of the
economic debate it is the case that unemployment did rise very sharply under
the Conservatives at the beginning of the 1980s. Mrs Thatcher and her
supporters claimed that this was a price worth paying to reduce the rate of
inflation and increase the international competitiveness of the UK
economy .The rate of inflation , after rising in 1979-1980 did fall as
unemployment remained high into the late 1980s.There then followed a period of
severe economic instability between 1988 and 1992 as unemployment first fell
with a consequent rise in inflation followed by a rise in unemployment with a
consequent fall in inflation. Following the exit of the
They explain what they consider to be the excessive growth and inefficient administration of the state in general and the welfare state in particular in terms of public choice theory; they claim that the combination of high taxation and generous welfare benefits resulted in excessive economic equality which undermined incentives and economic growth and contributed to the development of a welfare dependent underclass.
Critics dispute these views. They argue that the conclusions of public choice theory are likely to be invalid because most state bureaucrats operate in accordance with a public service ethos which priorities the national interest rather than their own narrow self-interest; that attempts to increase economic equality can be justified in terms of fairness and greater equality of opportunity which itself will increase economic efficiency; and that the New Right version of Underclass theory [based mainly on the ideas of Charles Murray is flawed.
- The theory is said to overstate cultural differences in attitudes and values between members of the so-called underclass and the rest of society.
- The theory is said to understate the impact of structural forces such as the relocation of industrial production to low cost developing countries as factors influencing the growth of unemployment.
- Also according to many critics of the theory many members of the working class move in and out of poverty so that in effect no permanent underclass exists.
New Right theorists have argued that the trade unions were excessively powerful and that their demands for excessive wage increases , their use of strike activity and restrictive practices served to reduce the attractiveness of foreign investment into the UK and to restrict the UK rate of economic growth .Their power was especially visible in the Miners' Strike of 1973-74 and the Winter of Discontent 1978-79 which [allegedly] led indirectly to the falls of the Heath and Callaghan Governments respectively. However critics argue that there are many causes of slow economic growth; that Britain has never been an especially strike prone country; and that the outcome of General Elections depends upon a wide variety of factors such that if the Heath and Callaghan governments had been perceived as generally effective governments they would have won the respective General Elections. Also from a Marxist perspective it is argued that states in capitalist societies operate mainly in the interests of the dominant capitalist class which has far greater economic and political power than does the trade union movement.
It is no simple matter to assess the actual validity of different ideological positions because to do so one would have to assess the extents to which individual government policies across the whole range of government activity have in practice been driven by governments' professed ideologies and to quantify the effects of all policies which have been ideologically driven. To take only one policy area it might be generally agreed that taxation and social security policies have at different times been influenced by the ideologies of Social Democracy, One Nation Conservatism and the New Right: in each case we should need to assess the effects of these policies on economic equality, economic efficiency and economic growth, the extent to which any benefits of growth trickled down to the poor, whether a welfare -dependent underclass existed and if so how it was influenced by differing policies and how these differing policies affected equality of opportunity. Social researchers are of course still involved in the investigation of the practical effects of Thatcherite policies in every area of government.
My own interpretation of data on the comparative effects of differing ideological approaches to taxation and social security policies would not support the ideological claims of New Right theorists but they might claim in turn that this is because my own interpretations are also ideologically biased which leads on to questions as to whether biases in social research can ever be entirely avoided. But these are questions for another day and for another website author!
Meanwhile you may click
the following link for a video in which supporters of Thatcherism
articulate their views fully and I hope you will find this source useful as you
seek to arrive at a balanced view of Thatcherite ideology and policy.
Meanwhile you may click the following link for a video
in which supporters of Thatcherism articulate their views fully and I hope you will find this source useful as you seek to arrive at a balanced view of Thatcherite ideology and policy.Margaret Thatcher; Death of a Revolutionary