hankyoreh

Robert M. Page

Thomas Piketty’s latest book, Capital and Ideology (2020), reminds us of the important role played by ideology in sustaining unequal economic and social systems. Piketty draws attention to how ideology functions to legitimise the interests of capitalists and rentiers rather than workers and non- property owners. As in his previous book, Capital in the 21st Century, 2014, he makes the case for an ideological shift back to social democratic ideals calling for greater equality and more progressive forms of taxation.

Margaret Thatcher is often credited with ensuring that free market ideas became the dominant ideology in late 20th century Britain. Following her election in 1979 as Britain’s first female Prime Minister, Thatcher challenged the prevailing consensus on economic and social policy. In terms of the former she initiated tax cuts, trades union reform and curbs to public expenditure. Thatcher also attacked the `social democratic’ welfare consensus that operated between 1951 and 1979. She was perturbed by the fact that the Conservatives were in office for some seventeen years during this period but did little to challenge the dominant ideology. Influenced by thinkers such as Milton Friedman and Friedrick von Hayek, Thatcher and her acolytes maintained that the welfare state was causing more harm than good and was in need of major reform. In the case of the National Health service, for example, she argued that the lack of competitive pressures meant that providers took little interest in cost control measures. In the case of social security, Thatcherites contended that the provision of benefits as of right was creating a dependency culture and that a more challenging regime needed to be established to encourage working age claimants to return to work.

While debate continues regarding the success or otherwise of Thatcher’s attempt to reform the welfare state during her Premiership, it is hard to argue against the idea that she did, at the very least, achieve an ideological victory over the social democrats. As a result of her time in office, there has been greater private and voluntary sector involvement in the welfare state. There have also been sustained attempts to improve choice and competition in state provision. It is notable that during the period of the new Labour governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown from 1997 to 2010 there was limited effort to reverse the Thatcher reforms or challenge the ideology of Thatcherism. Although Blair’s championing of the `Third Way’ represented an attempt to distinguish new Labour from Thatcherism, in practice there was limited opposition to her legacy.

Following a lengthy period in the political wilderness (1997-2010), the Conservative party has been distancing itself from Thatcherism. It is accepted that Thatcher’s reform of the welfare state was too harsh and was a factor in their electoral unpopularity between 1997 and 2010. Once in office, both Prime Ministers David Cameron (2010-17) and Theresa May (2017-2019) portrayed themselves as interventionist, `One Nation’ Conservatives who wanted to improve the life chances of those on low incomes. Since becoming leader of the Conservative party and Prime Minister, Boris Johnson has continued this tradition declaring himself to be a One Nation Conservative.

The fundamental question is whether this shift in ideological positioning is due to a desire to abandon the principles of Thatcherism, or merely to soften some of its harshest aspects. The austere economic policies of the Cameron and May years has led many to conclude that there had been no fundamental change in ideological thinking.

Will Boris Johnson’s recently elected government move decisively away from Thatcherism? The fact that some key members of the Cabinet have expressed their support for Thatcherite ideals (such as the Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab, the Home Secretary Priti Patel and the Secretary of State for International Trade, Liz Truss) suggests that Thatcherism is alive and kicking in the current Conservative government. However, it is open to question whether there is any appetite to impose a post-pandemic austerity programme given the sacrifices made by the working class in previous years. It is much more likely that there will be a far greater degree of state intervention and support than would have been countenanced by Margaret Thatcher. This may still prove to be a pragmatic, short-term shift to be followed by a return to free market ideology once the economy starts to recover from the consequences of Covid 19. Nevertheless, given that the Conservatives are now reliant on new found electoral support of working-class voters in the North of England, the One Nation rhetoric may be longer lasting. Indeed, there could be an acceptance that the UK has entered a post Thatcherite age and that, in consequence, social democratic principles are likely to be embraced once again. This may not represent a deep ideological conversion but it could in practice mean that Thatcherism is now in retreat.

By Robert M Page, Reader in Democratic Socialism and Social Policy at the University of Birmingham

The views presented in this column are the writer’s own, and do not necessarily reflect those of The Hankyoreh.

Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]