Saturday, September 22, 2007

Gray, the Boy David and Thatcher

John Gray has a superb article in the New Statesman about the problems of the boy David. I won't try to summarise. But there is one crucial insight to note. To Margaret Thatcher (and to Hayek), neo-liberalism would inspire a return to bourgeois, 'Victorian' values. In fact, her economic reforms had the reverse effect. They created a freewheeling, individualistic society. It is this that the boneheads on the Tory benches - and, I'm afraid, elsewhere - who dream of a return to 'Thatcherism' fail to grasp. In the treacherous, penny-farthing hells they call their minds, social Thatcherism is what she said it was; in fact it was the opposite. Thatcher was a great prime minister and her reforms have kept Labour in power. Thatcherism, however, is a failed creed.

8 comments:

  1. Why "created"? Surely Mrs. Thatcher isn't responsible for the 60's, the sexual revolution and the decline of religion? Or this?

    ReplyDelete
  2. 'Created' may be the wrong word but the main point is unaffected.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Peter - the question of responsibility is a red herring, the point is that the social changes wrought since the sixties are unlikely to be reversed. It is significant, I think, that you mention religion. Britain's political elite continue's to act as if religion is a potent motivating factor in British live's (support for faith schools etc) when church attendance is plummeting and people aged 18 - 30 are overwhelmingly irreligous.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's been a while since I read him but I can't remember Hayek saying anything along the lines of economic freedom will result in "a return to bourgeois Victorian values". Nor can I recall the 'Blessed Margaret' saying anything similar. Alas, she only managed to *pause* the state's interference in family matters, not stop it all together, so the chances of any values other than 'it's me rights, innit' was never likely to succeed, and under the iron fist of 'ur wee Gordie Broon' and his 'Big State is Beautiful' regime, there is absolutely no chance.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well, based at least on your press, as well as popular novels and the British police mysteries I so love, it does seem to be a frequent theme on both the left and a good portion of the right that Thatcher, in addition to all the economic reforms, somehow changed your national character. More and more the bad guy is not some corrupt aristocrat, but rather a gauche, amoral Titmus-like character trying to put a carpark in the village square or a shopping mall on the sports fields of the local comprehensive (Boo!).

    I'm in no place to judge, but I don't think I've ever heard that accusation made about Reagan or Canadian or Australian conservatives, even by their most adamant opponents. Is it possible this has less to do with Thatcher and more with a widespread ambivalence about economic growth?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Some good points in the article but a lot of hogwash too. Any politician with any ability ought to be able to sense the mood of a country getting sick to death of the incompetence, double-standards and hypocrisy running rampant currently. High levels of emigration are a reflection of this unease. Cameron ought to be tapping into this. Gordon Brown has played his hand well so far, but he is one of the main sources of the "unending stream of ephemeral initiatives" that are blighting Britain. His stupidity with regard to pensions, the PFI and over-spending without thought will come back to haunt him.

    Britian is witnessing a decline in its key social institutions. The police, education and health service are all in the grip of soviet-style targeting, maladministration and a wilting professional ethos. The problems here seem to me to be more to do with a weakness in left-of-centre thought rather than anything to do with Thatcherism. Why, for example, does the Education system refuse to maintain standards? Why cannot the left-wing establishment see the damage this does to social mobility? Cameron has not yet offered any sensible alternatives, but Gray's smugness is woefully misplaced.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Interesting to see Bryan once again lining up with the optimistic John Gray. And it is remarkable that Thatcher gets it in the neck again too. The Victorians were pretty freewheeling and indiovdualistic you know. Nowadays it seems everybody is allowed to admire her so long as everybody blames her too. An element in modern society that has grown out of all recognition over the past twenty years is drug use. Council estates (as well as the worlds of sport, media and the professions) are now rife with them, and murder and crime feed off it too making the lives of the poorest hell. Is this the fault of Mrs T? Mobile communications, cheaper air travel, and the death of religion (this is your only chance and make the most of it while you can attitudes) have contributed mightily. The Britain of I'm All Right Jack was going nowhere. The 70's was a vicious decade of industrial strife and incompetence. Windbag is right about our social institutions - and they are still in the grip of a left liberal, heavily unionised mindset. My guess is that worthy, frugal old labourites such as Attlee and Bevin would share Maggie's bemusement at the course we've taken.

    ReplyDelete