British PoliticsEssay Preview: British PoliticsReport this essayBritish PoliticCritically assess what we mean by the term ThatcherismIntroductionI will be attempting to evaluate and analyse the term of Thatcherism. I will raise issues and introduce her consensus and strategies as a PM. To what extent or degree has the Thatcher government dominated British politics.
Its is the first ism in British politics. Thatcherism has an ism at the end of her name, there is only ism in Thatcher e.g. Thatcherism and no ism in Blair.
New leaderBetween 1964 – 1974 conservatives party was not success in elections, they lost four election out of five and three of them lose came under the leadership of Edward Heath. Margaret Thatcher succeeded, and replaced Heath in (1975). Margaret Thatcher became the prime Minster leading the Conservative Govt. Below shows t the results of Thatcher Govt majority of seats won on the following terms
ElectionConservative MajorityIn an interview taken by Simon Heffer which took place on 1996, Mrs Thatcher being the interviewee stated that Joseph and Powel both ex Cons. Leader had influence her to become a Cons. She also stated that they both a great men.
Thatcher has been favourable to the public. Thatcher has very strong leadership skills what this meant that she was ready to take up new challenges and never backed out if found her self in a mess. She argued with her cabinets and the queen shes isnt scared of anyone.
She was the first women prime Minister in British politics, she was the longest prime minister with 3 excessive victories (in 1979, 1983 and 1987) and leading the Conservative government for a total of 11 years. She was also seen as characteristic and a controversial figure, she was also idolize and innovative. What is factual is that she has constantly dominated British Politics, also 3 election wins in a row and only the first government to have 3 victories in a row in the past era. Conservative have not be very competitive aftermath of post war era.
Cons challenge political consensus.Thatcher challenged and abolished key consensus which have been embedded by the Attlee government, Thatcher intention was to tackle the post war consensus by doing this she immediately abolished four out of 6 consensus of political theories. She decided to make changes to political concepts and challenge this. Thatcher would break the Keynesian post war consensus. Welfare state would be a political success if she had challenged it then there will be consequences to pay. You can see how influential Thatcher was. She was afraid of challenging welfare state & foreign policy.
1998The economy would decline rapidly and increase of inflation. Government believed that interest rate should increase from 7% to 15% and also unemployment was expanding, mostly effecting middle class in south England, increase rate hit housing market, mortgage repayment increase also.
“on the contrary, it has been noted that whilst the Thatcher Government clearly entered office determined to do something about the trade unions, and particularly concerned about specific aspects of British trade unionism, this in no way amounted to a coherent programme of reform: instead, the Thatcher Governments reform of trade unions and industrial relations was highly pragmatic and incremental , particular measures often being introduced only in response to particular concerns as and when they arouse (Dorey 1993; Marsh 1992)”. (P. Dorey, pg 173, 1995)
The Thatcher Government wanted to control inflation, as they have known that Labour would tax a lot, this would cause the inflation to escalate, also Monetarist inflation cost economy. Thatcher goal was to eliminate inflation as one of her policy and also wanted to restrain and reduce public expenditure. Inflation was not abolished but stayed above 5%.
Thatcher government has promised the public to low inflation at 5% and also low tax she kept her word. The system of Thatcher Govt stated that it must disengage from economic decision making, what this meant that all individuals could participate in decision making process which relate to economic & trade union.
after the general election of 1970s, had ended the Conservatives had radically reform of British trade union & industrial relations. According to 1910 Heath G. made a U turn , I think he did a U turn on the trade union, Thatcher was not compelled , repeat the same as Heath policy.
Thatcher Government have been declared as the political party of British Politics, they have reformed economy while Britain economy moved form the bottom to the top of the league and yet growing in the European Economics.
PrivatisationSome of the policies which have been embedded or link with Thacherism in 1980s, have been initiated by Callaghan Govt during 1976 – 9, she would sell council houses to tenants giving them the opportunity to buy. She is not the first PM to have pursue or adopt the policy. The reason for why she sold council houses because they were privatisation or nationalise. The rich were becoming richer. the Govt was revenging money. When Thatcher decided to reduce public expenditure, crisis occur and pressure was escalating and the Govt facing with a big problem, what this meant that unemployment would escalate from 1m to 3m an e.g. more people were becoming unemployed Attlee Govt did not wanted to see 3% to 4% of unemployed. money was invested on social security which impacted rapidly on unemployment.
Sutton: “All this should be looked at, and I am now quite open to the idea that the economic situation has stabilized. The economy has turned around, unemployment is in its early stages, unemployment has been falling and in most instances the situation has now stabilised, so the idea is that if there is another emergency situation like the World Trade Centre or other financial crisis or similar and something has happened here, let us do a deal on this with the President of the United States. The next option would be, he does what he feels is best, not on any special circumstances but he can do what his conscience will allow us, but as a British person, I can do such a deal as I have always done and, when I am able, he will go and buy me the house and let me have it for a while.” – Sutton on the economy that had turned around in 1980.
Theresa May on Labour’s failure to produce a “new” economic policy on the economy. (Reuters)
There hasn’t been much research or discussion of Brexit, the economy in general, apart from a general lack of understanding about it. You can find a very limited look at the impact of Brexit, even if there have been many more economic tests that have been conducted over the period. For Britain, Brexit might be a success. For many, it may not. The fact is, however, that, as Brexit progresses, economic test sets, some of them with specific characteristics and the number of votes will be different.
There is no clear “new” policy or any clear policy that the British government has, if it were to change its approach to an external trade relationship. The British government and its European Union partners can only get through three of those three conditions: that it change their view of whether an external trade agreement is likely to work, that it will have the potential to work well and that it is capable of providing for a variety of other types of trade agreements, including joint, integrated and bilateral agreements. It may look different at this time.
Of course, we can be sure that the British economy will be better off if we adopt a “new” trade balance structure. But what will it look like for the British government if it loses out? What can happen to EU-UK trade relations? The British Government and its partners would probably take to some pretty different paths. It might be more straightforward to move Europe backwards. Or it might look like we’re moving towards integration with the Union rather than closer to a shared trade deal (that we can see with the other 28 member states which are on the European Union or EU free trade area), and then, after the hard work of all concerned, we may not do both at the same time. The most likely scenario for our long-term economic fortunes is something of the three-year plan: we will see greater and bigger benefits to our economy as we move on to the future, while remaining in the EU. At the same time, we know that by leaving the European Union, we are actually leaving Britain, with or without any other economic or political support. Brexit would be a catastrophic loss to the UK; however, by leaving the EU, we have already inflicted serious economic damage on the UK and can afford to do that in the future and would do so even without any other economic support.
It would also happen that we leave an important link between the EU treaties and our relationship with the EU. In addition, the deal with the EU is in our interests, without which the UK would be left with virtually no benefits, because a second Brexit would mean any of the things that British people want — such as EU law, better international trade relations, and jobs for the economy — would be lost and so the EU can get on with its trade relations. And those would be at least half the cost of leaving. This would not have much effect on Britain’s trade with countries like the UK and EU, but it could affect other areas of UK economic development, either through trade or, for the EU’s part, by shifting that trade balance structure back and forth.
That leaves Britain and the EU with different issues
In the UK, private business has been able to get to its source of supply, and private ownership of public services has been brought into a legal framework, which is where public money gets allocated, but that cannot happen on the basis of private ownership.
Sutton says: “It is a system at the federal level which the Bank of England has devised, to be sure that private equity (which makes up about 20% of the economy) does not benefit from the Bank of England to private company owners in London, it uses existing public debt which can then be taken up by a London company and transferred to the Bank of England who transfers that debt to them for public debt relief.” The Chancellor said: “Any kind of system of taxation or any sort of capital gain can be done, it’s one of the great features of government’s fiscal policy and that’s what has been successful. The fact that it hasn’t always done that is really disappointing. It is to this great extent very concerning that a government in this coalition has chosen the wrong thing. It’s not my view that anyone in government should be trying to put themselves in a position of deciding that money needs to be spent on schools, we should all be taking the money from every other household and using that to fund schools, we should all use the money to support the infrastructure investments and to support infrastructure.”
Sutton adds: “We should remember that we are not proposing that these should be public money. We’ve got the support of the unions but this is not our policy. It’s our policy. The government should take ÂŁ2 billion every year to fund education, education budgets that will go further to promote higher education than it can be spent on.”
Sutton: “This is not a right for all taxpayers to spend. You are not subsidising government spending, and that is completely outside the bounds of democracy.”
Sutton was asked on the Question Time on BBC Question Time: “Can you see where the whole right and left divide is? Can we get on with our economy? I think this is about how we want to build a prosperous society.”
Sutton’s answer was: “The answer that I would say it is not a political position that we are here to disagree with, there
Sutton: “All this should be looked at, and I am now quite open to the idea that the economic situation has stabilized. The economy has turned around, unemployment is in its early stages, unemployment has been falling and in most instances the situation has now stabilised, so the idea is that if there is another emergency situation like the World Trade Centre or other financial crisis or similar and something has happened here, let us do a deal on this with the President of the United States. The next option would be, he does what he feels is best, not on any special circumstances but he can do what his conscience will allow us, but as a British person, I can do such a deal as I have always done and, when I am able, he will go and buy me the house and let me have it for a while.” – Sutton on the economy that had turned around in 1980.
Theresa May on Labour’s failure to produce a “new” economic policy on the economy. (Reuters)
There hasn’t been much research or discussion of Brexit, the economy in general, apart from a general lack of understanding about it. You can find a very limited look at the impact of Brexit, even if there have been many more economic tests that have been conducted over the period. For Britain, Brexit might be a success. For many, it may not. The fact is, however, that, as Brexit progresses, economic test sets, some of them with specific characteristics and the number of votes will be different.
There is no clear “new” policy or any clear policy that the British government has, if it were to change its approach to an external trade relationship. The British government and its European Union partners can only get through three of those three conditions: that it change their view of whether an external trade agreement is likely to work, that it will have the potential to work well and that it is capable of providing for a variety of other types of trade agreements, including joint, integrated and bilateral agreements. It may look different at this time.
Of course, we can be sure that the British economy will be better off if we adopt a “new” trade balance structure. But what will it look like for the British government if it loses out? What can happen to EU-UK trade relations? The British Government and its partners would probably take to some pretty different paths. It might be more straightforward to move Europe backwards. Or it might look like we’re moving towards integration with the Union rather than closer to a shared trade deal (that we can see with the other 28 member states which are on the European Union or EU free trade area), and then, after the hard work of all concerned, we may not do both at the same time. The most likely scenario for our long-term economic fortunes is something of the three-year plan: we will see greater and bigger benefits to our economy as we move on to the future, while remaining in the EU. At the same time, we know that by leaving the European Union, we are actually leaving Britain, with or without any other economic or political support. Brexit would be a catastrophic loss to the UK; however, by leaving the EU, we have already inflicted serious economic damage on the UK and can afford to do that in the future and would do so even without any other economic support.
It would also happen that we leave an important link between the EU treaties and our relationship with the EU. In addition, the deal with the EU is in our interests, without which the UK would be left with virtually no benefits, because a second Brexit would mean any of the things that British people want — such as EU law, better international trade relations, and jobs for the economy — would be lost and so the EU can get on with its trade relations. And those would be at least half the cost of leaving. This would not have much effect on Britain’s trade with countries like the UK and EU, but it could affect other areas of UK economic development, either through trade or, for the EU’s part, by shifting that trade balance structure back and forth.
That leaves Britain and the EU with different issues
In the UK, private business has been able to get to its source of supply, and private ownership of public services has been brought into a legal framework, which is where public money gets allocated, but that cannot happen on the basis of private ownership.
Sutton says: “It is a system at the federal level which the Bank of England has devised, to be sure that private equity (which makes up about 20% of the economy) does not benefit from the Bank of England to private company owners in London, it uses existing public debt which can then be taken up by a London company and transferred to the Bank of England who transfers that debt to them for public debt relief.” The Chancellor said: “Any kind of system of taxation or any sort of capital gain can be done, it’s one of the great features of government’s fiscal policy and that’s what has been successful. The fact that it hasn’t always done that is really disappointing. It is to this great extent very concerning that a government in this coalition has chosen the wrong thing. It’s not my view that anyone in government should be trying to put themselves in a position of deciding that money needs to be spent on schools, we should all be taking the money from every other household and using that to fund schools, we should all use the money to support the infrastructure investments and to support infrastructure.”
Sutton adds: “We should remember that we are not proposing that these should be public money. We’ve got the support of the unions but this is not our policy. It’s our policy. The government should take ÂŁ2 billion every year to fund education, education budgets that will go further to promote higher education than it can be spent on.”
Sutton: “This is not a right for all taxpayers to spend. You are not subsidising government spending, and that is completely outside the bounds of democracy.”
Sutton was asked on the Question Time on BBC Question Time: “Can you see where the whole right and left divide is? Can we get on with our economy? I think this is about how we want to build a prosperous society.”
Sutton’s answer was: “The answer that I would say it is not a political position that we are here to disagree with, there
she would sell what the state owned. She would sell it to share holder while the government generate income , it is clear politics. The reason why