The 'red meat' of politics

In his address to the Fabians today Alan Johnson drew a clear dividing line between Labour and Conservative approaches to health inequality. Johnson argued that a chasm has now opened up between the two parties. At a fundamental level, it’s a simple choice between “laissez-faire versus intervention. A policy of inaction or active government.”

This is what Johnson refers to as the ‘red meat’ of politics. It’s a pertinent time to raise the issue of health inequality, as this year marks the centenary of the publication of Beatrice Webb’s Minority Report, as well as being the 30th anniversary of the completion of Sir Douglas Black’s seminal work on health inequality.

Health inequality can be both complex and deeply entrenched, linked with a variety of social factors – from housing to education. As Johnson admitted at the lecture: “health inequalities are as important for Margaret Beckett [in her role as Minister of State for Housing] as they are for me.”

No-one doubts great strides have been made. Take child poverty: in 1998, 3.4 million children – one in four – were living in absolute poverty. This has now been halved.

Of course, there is still a huge amount of work to be done in combating health inequality. Social injustice is ‘still killing people on a grand scale’, as the last WHO report has demonstrated.

In today’s Britain, the difference between a long life or an early death is often still just a few miles: a boy in the suburb of Calton, Glasgow, can expect to live 28 years less than one brought up in nearby Lenzie. One born in Hampstead, London, will live around 11 years longer than a boy from St Pancras – just five stops away on the underground.

Britain can’t afford to repeat the mistake of the Thatcher government and ignore what Sir Douglas Black pointed out 30 years ago: that tackling health inequality will require a government that is prepared to confront the underlying issue of poverty with ambition, imagination and investment.

Or we could simply choose to leave the most vulnerable in our society to face the tender mercies of the market. But we’ve been down that road before, and the consequences were spectacularly dire. From the early 70’s to the early 90’s, the lifespan of the highest socio-economic groups continued to improve. The lifespan of the lowest socio-economic groups, however, not only failed to improve – they actually fell, for the first time since the Victorian era.

For all of Mrs Thatcher’s professed love for ‘Victorian values’, this is one element of the Victorian age we can all agree should have no place in today’s Britain. Read more...

The 'red meat' of politics

In his address to the Fabians today Alan Johnson drew a clear dividing line between Labour and Conservative approaches to health inequality. Johnson argued that a chasm has now opened up between the two parties. At a fundamental level, it’s a simple choice between “laissez-faire versus intervention. A policy of inaction or active government.”

This is what Johnson refers to as the ‘red meat’ of politics. It’s a pertinent time to raise the issue of health inequality, as this year marks the centenary of the publication of Beatrice Webb’s Minority Report, as well as being the 30th anniversary of the completion of Sir Douglas Black’s seminal work on health inequality.

Health inequality can be both complex and deeply entrenched, linked with a variety of social factors – from housing to education. As Johnson admitted at the lecture: “health inequalities are as important for Margaret Beckett [in her role as Minister of State for Housing] as they are for me.”

No-one doubts great strides have been made. Take child poverty: in 1998, 3.4 million children – one in four – were living in absolute poverty. This has now been halved.

Of course, there is still a huge amount of work to be done in combating health inequality. Social injustice is ‘still killing people on a grand scale’, as the last WHO report has demonstrated.

In today’s Britain, the difference between a long life or an early death is often still just a few miles: a boy in the suburb of Calton, Glasgow, can expect to live 28 years less than one brought up in nearby Lenzie. One born in Hampstead, London, will live around 11 years longer than a boy from St Pancras – just five stops away on the underground.

Britain can’t afford to repeat the mistake of the Thatcher government and ignore what Sir Douglas Black pointed out 30 years ago: that tackling health inequality will require a government that is prepared to confront the underlying issue of poverty with ambition, imagination and investment.

Or we could simply choose to leave the most vulnerable in our society to face the tender mercies of the market. But we’ve been down that road before, and the consequences were spectacularly dire. From the early 70’s to the early 90’s, the lifespan of the highest socio-economic groups continued to improve. The lifespan of the lowest socio-economic groups, however, not only failed to improve – they actually fell, for the first time since the Victorian era.

For all of Mrs Thatcher’s professed love for ‘Victorian values’, this is one element of the Victorian age we can all agree should have no place in today’s Britain. Read more...

David Cameron and Thatcherism

David Cameron will cheer many in his own party with his letter to Margaret Thatcher, to mark the 30th anniversary of her coming to power.

I still find it awe-inspiring to think of the state of the nation you inherited and the immense achievements of your governments. Getting the country to live within its means, bringing the trade unions within the law, rolling back the tide of state ownership, standing steadfast with our allies in the cold war ... but above all giving the British people back their pride and self-belief. The whole country owes you a huge debt.

The tone of the letter will raise hopes within the party - and fears outside it too - that the Conservative response to the recession may see Cameron more willing to present himself as a Thatcherite.

Cameron's treatment of the Thatcher legacy has provided a masterclass in political ambiguity. According to mood and audience, his "progressive Conservatism" has been presented as both break and continuation of the Thatcher legacy.

Take what was probably his most important speech so far this year - at Davos.

The Guardian reported that Cameron hails Thatcher in his call for 'truly popular capitalism',

The Daily Mail reported that Cameron calls for 'moral capitalism' in move away from Thatcher.

Or take the Cameron soundbite which was used consistently from the start of his leadership with the clear intention of signalling his distance from the Thatcher legacy.

Cameron has said, as often as possible "There is such a thing as society; it is just not the same as the state".

He was not the first to make that argument. The source of the quotation is a revealing one.

And to set the record straight — once again — I have never minimised the importance of society, only contested the assumption that society means the State rather than other people.

That was Margaret Thatcher in her Keith Joseph Memorial Lecture on Liberty and Limited Government of 1996. Read more...

David Cameron and Thatcherism

David Cameron will cheer many in his own party with his letter to Margaret Thatcher, to mark the 30th anniversary of her coming to power.

I still find it awe-inspiring to think of the state of the nation you inherited and the immense achievements of your governments. Getting the country to live within its means, bringing the trade unions within the law, rolling back the tide of state ownership, standing steadfast with our allies in the cold war ... but above all giving the British people back their pride and self-belief. The whole country owes you a huge debt.

The tone of the letter will raise hopes within the party - and fears outside it too - that the Conservative response to the recession may see Cameron more willing to present himself as a Thatcherite.

Cameron's treatment of the Thatcher legacy has provided a masterclass in political ambiguity. According to mood and audience, his "progressive Conservatism" has been presented as both break and continuation of the Thatcher legacy.

Take what was probably his most important speech so far this year - at Davos.

The Guardian reported that Cameron hails Thatcher in his call for 'truly popular capitalism',

The Daily Mail reported that Cameron calls for 'moral capitalism' in move away from Thatcher.

Or take the Cameron soundbite which was used consistently from the start of his leadership with the clear intention of signalling his distance from the Thatcher legacy.

Cameron has said, as often as possible "There is such a thing as society; it is just not the same as the state".

He was not the first to make that argument. The source of the quotation is a revealing one.

And to set the record straight — once again — I have never minimised the importance of society, only contested the assumption that society means the State rather than other people.

That was Margaret Thatcher in her Keith Joseph Memorial Lecture on Liberty and Limited Government of 1996. Read more...

Thatcherism still divides

This has been a long season of Thatcherism retrospectives building up to the 30th anniversary of the 1979 election. The new issue of Prospect contains a very interesting piece by David Willetts, about which I may well post separately, along with a fascinating poll

Today, just as when she left office, the iron lady splits Britain pretty much down the middle, with 40 per cent of those questioned feeling she made Britain a better place to live, set against 41 per cent who thought she made it worse. Only 6 per cent thought she had made no difference at all.

That Thatcherism did not quite change the souls and values of the British people was a continual theme of British Social Attitudes surveys during her time and after.

And, thirty years on, it is interesting that Prospect and YouGov find that 46% believe she was right to lower the top rate from 60p to 40p (as late as 1988 as has been widely forgotten) while 37% oppose that; and even her policy of curbing the unions is supported only by a plurality of 48% to 37%. Among the least popular Thatcher legacies is privatisation, with 28% for and 58% again.

Yet it is surely to Thatcher's credit as an ideological politician that she was so often willing and able to take calculated risks in moving ahead of public opinion and to seek to change the political weather by doing so.

My own take on Thatcherism and its legacy - and how British politics remains 'In Maggie's Shadow' is shortly to be published in the ippr's public policy review journal. Next Left will do more to address how Thatcherism influences contemporary politics over the next few days. Read more...

Thatcherism still divides

This has been a long season of Thatcherism retrospectives building up to the 30th anniversary of the 1979 election. The new issue of Prospect contains a very interesting piece by David Willetts, about which I may well post separately, along with a fascinating poll

Today, just as when she left office, the iron lady splits Britain pretty much down the middle, with 40 per cent of those questioned feeling she made Britain a better place to live, set against 41 per cent who thought she made it worse. Only 6 per cent thought she had made no difference at all.

That Thatcherism did not quite change the souls and values of the British people was a continual theme of British Social Attitudes surveys during her time and after.

And, thirty years on, it is interesting that Prospect and YouGov find that 46% believe she was right to lower the top rate from 60p to 40p (as late as 1988 as has been widely forgotten) while 37% oppose that; and even her policy of curbing the unions is supported only by a plurality of 48% to 37%. Among the least popular Thatcher legacies is privatisation, with 28% for and 58% again.

Yet it is surely to Thatcher's credit as an ideological politician that she was so often willing and able to take calculated risks in moving ahead of public opinion and to seek to change the political weather by doing so.

My own take on Thatcherism and its legacy - and how British politics remains 'In Maggie's Shadow' is shortly to be published in the ippr's public policy review journal. Next Left will do more to address how Thatcherism influences contemporary politics over the next few days. Read more...

Scrappy families

The new Fabian Review is out - details here - and thought i'd post Teal's cartoon for Mary Riddell's IDS interview, which is a pretty good representation of his pot shots at Tory colleagues and sacred cows... Read more...

Scrappy families

The new Fabian Review is out - details here - and thought i'd post Teal's cartoon for Mary Riddell's IDS interview, which is a pretty good representation of his pot shots at Tory colleagues and sacred cows... Read more...

The case for a jobs guarantee

This is my editorial commentary in the Spring edition of the Fabian Review. It is still unclear what politics will look like after the economic crisis. The left needs to make a stronger public argument for the kind of reformed capitalism we want.

”Thirty years of hurt never stopped us dreaming.” That was the surprising message from New Labour’s next generation at the Fabian New Year Conference in January. Both Ed Miliband and James Purnell argued that the financial crisis of autumn 2008 closed the political era begun by the winter of discontent thirty years earlier. Their call for a political rebalancing after a crisis caused by a failure of governance tacitly acknowledged that New Labour has reformed, but not realigned British politics.

What next? The script remains to be written, said Ed Miliband. What this new script might be is less clear.

The contours of a post-Thatcherite British politics remain hazy. The political frontbenches have been unable to contribute much of substance to this season of Thatcher retrospectives because neither party leader can yet give a full, frank and honest public account of the Thatcher legacy. David Cameron cannot publicly own pre-Thatcherite ‘progressive Conservative’ traditions of Macmillan and Heath for fear of offending his Thatcherite party.

Labour remains in Thatcher’s shadow because it too often still thinks of its acknowledgement of the role of markets as primarily the product of its 1980s political defeats. A critique of the excesses of neo-liberalism is necessary, but not enough. A credible alternative depends on working through, in our own terms, a social democratic account of the scope and limits of markets if they are to pursue economic, social and environmental ends.

This cannot be the left’s moment without serious advocacy of the reformed capitalism we want. That centre-left ideas are in the ascendant internationally does not guarantee progressive outcomes. There was no British FDR. The British centre-left has done well only in moments of hope – in 1906, 1945, 1966 and 1997 – being badly defeated in times of economic crisis, in the 1930s and 1980s.

A fiscal stimulus, quantitative easing and multilateral reform have been important, and necessary. But they do not amount to a politics of this crisis. The public are disoriented by the scale of events and the deeply contested argument about whether the lasting scars of inaction or public debt are to be more feared.

Unemployment could prove the decisive issue. Those least to blame in this crisis are the 600,000 young people who will leave education this summer, with the same number again next summer. Perhaps only half will find jobs. To argue that government cannot do more is to accept four million unemployed as a price we have to pay. Just as Iain Duncan Smith reflects a growing awareness on the right of the social legacy of the 1980s, Professor David Blanchflower (for a long time a lonely voice on the Monetary Policy Committee) has set out several credible, affordable and time-limited measures urgently required to prevent the scars of this recession being felt in 30 years time.

This could prove the central political choice of the year ahead. New Labour came to power seeking to address youth unemployment. The principle of fairness rightly insists that those who could work must be willing to do so; there should also be meaningful work or training for all want it. Let us not offer responsibilities without rights. Read more...

The case for a jobs guarantee

This is my editorial commentary in the Spring edition of the Fabian Review. It is still unclear what politics will look like after the economic crisis. The left needs to make a stronger public argument for the kind of reformed capitalism we want.

”Thirty years of hurt never stopped us dreaming.” That was the surprising message from New Labour’s next generation at the Fabian New Year Conference in January. Both Ed Miliband and James Purnell argued that the financial crisis of autumn 2008 closed the political era begun by the winter of discontent thirty years earlier. Their call for a political rebalancing after a crisis caused by a failure of governance tacitly acknowledged that New Labour has reformed, but not realigned British politics.

What next? The script remains to be written, said Ed Miliband. What this new script might be is less clear.

The contours of a post-Thatcherite British politics remain hazy. The political frontbenches have been unable to contribute much of substance to this season of Thatcher retrospectives because neither party leader can yet give a full, frank and honest public account of the Thatcher legacy. David Cameron cannot publicly own pre-Thatcherite ‘progressive Conservative’ traditions of Macmillan and Heath for fear of offending his Thatcherite party.

Labour remains in Thatcher’s shadow because it too often still thinks of its acknowledgement of the role of markets as primarily the product of its 1980s political defeats. A critique of the excesses of neo-liberalism is necessary, but not enough. A credible alternative depends on working through, in our own terms, a social democratic account of the scope and limits of markets if they are to pursue economic, social and environmental ends.

This cannot be the left’s moment without serious advocacy of the reformed capitalism we want. That centre-left ideas are in the ascendant internationally does not guarantee progressive outcomes. There was no British FDR. The British centre-left has done well only in moments of hope – in 1906, 1945, 1966 and 1997 – being badly defeated in times of economic crisis, in the 1930s and 1980s.

A fiscal stimulus, quantitative easing and multilateral reform have been important, and necessary. But they do not amount to a politics of this crisis. The public are disoriented by the scale of events and the deeply contested argument about whether the lasting scars of inaction or public debt are to be more feared.

Unemployment could prove the decisive issue. Those least to blame in this crisis are the 600,000 young people who will leave education this summer, with the same number again next summer. Perhaps only half will find jobs. To argue that government cannot do more is to accept four million unemployed as a price we have to pay. Just as Iain Duncan Smith reflects a growing awareness on the right of the social legacy of the 1980s, Professor David Blanchflower (for a long time a lonely voice on the Monetary Policy Committee) has set out several credible, affordable and time-limited measures urgently required to prevent the scars of this recession being felt in 30 years time.

This could prove the central political choice of the year ahead. New Labour came to power seeking to address youth unemployment. The principle of fairness rightly insists that those who could work must be willing to do so; there should also be meaningful work or training for all want it. Let us not offer responsibilities without rights. Read more...

A State funeral for Thatcher?

This week saw the opening of the much-heralded play, ‘Maggie’s End’, at the Shaw Theatre in London. The production envisages a Britain in 2010 where Charles sits on the throne and New Labour is back in power for a fourth term. During the year Margaret Thatcher passes away, leading to a decision to award her a state funeral - causing outrage amongst the assembled celebrating masses.

May 4th 2009 will mark the 30th anniversary of Margaret Thatcher becoming Prime Minister. Her spectre still looms large over British politics. She is as celebrated on the right as she is hated on the left. Since her frailty became apparent there has been intermittent speculation that the Labour government would consider awarding her a state funeral upon her death – reports which are met with derision and horror by many Labour voters, and then swiftly denied. But why shouldn’t a Labour Government, or indeed any government, mark the contribution a Prime Minister has made to the nation by awarding them a state funeral?

Having been born in 1985 I did not become interested in politics predisposed with the standard wrath reserved for Thatcher. I grew up in a family that was at best apolitical, at worst Conservative. It is only over the years that I have grasped the enormous amount of damage she inflicted on this country – how she decimated entire industries; how she sought to destroy the trade union movement; how she supported South Africa’s racist apartheid regime and branded Nelson Mandela a terrorist. All of these are deplorable actions by a deplorable Prime Minister.

But whether we like the actions of a Prime Minister or not we recognise that they have been democratically elected to the highest level of the profession of politics and enacted policies that have shaped our nation. Our Prime Ministers have represented Great Britain around the globe and been bestowed with the powers of the Crown.

Typically state funerals are reserved exclusively for monarchs. If granted, it would make Lady Thatcher the first premier since Sir Winston Churchill in 1965 to be given the honour. In the 20th Century there were two other state funerals for non-royals: military commander Frederick Roberts and ex-Ulster Unionist Party leader Edward Carson. In the 19th Century, five state funerals were granted to non-royal personages. The exceptional cases were Lord Nelson after his death at Trafalgar; Charles Darwin; and the Duke of Wellington, Lord Palmerston and William Gladstone, three former prime ministers.

But why should the highest honour upon death generally be reserved for members of the Royal Family who have been born in to privilege and power and not be awarded to those who have deliberately dedicated their lives to public service – for better or worse.

Thatcher was, after all, Prime Minister for 11 years, our first female Prime Minister and the longest serving PM of the post-war period. Even those who want to disagree with just about everything she did have to recognise that she was an important historical figure.

The fact that Margaret Thatcher was a divisive figure should not deter us from marking her time as Prime Minister. Winston Churchill was unceremoniously turfed from office at the first opportunity following the Second World War yet he received the ceremonial honour.

I don’t simply wish to make the case for Margaret Thatcher to be bestowed this honour as I believe there are many who are far more deserving than she. I believe that it is a recognition that should be given to all Prime Ministers.

By marking the contribution that our Prime Minister makes we can begin to establish a better link between politicians and society. It would be an attempt to stop the public seeing all politicians as the ‘enemy’ and help to change the generally cynical attitude that is so prevalent towards those who enter political public service.

It is simply about acknowledging someone who served and led their country even if you do not agree with the approach that they took. It also clearly states that we believe any citizen should be able to recieve the high honours of society, not just those who are of Royal birth.

I personally will happily mark the passing of Thatcherism at the same time we as a nation mark the passing of Thatcher. Read more...

A State funeral for Thatcher?

This week saw the opening of the much-heralded play, ‘Maggie’s End’, at the Shaw Theatre in London. The production envisages a Britain in 2010 where Charles sits on the throne and New Labour is back in power for a fourth term. During the year Margaret Thatcher passes away, leading to a decision to award her a state funeral - causing outrage amongst the assembled celebrating masses.

May 4th 2009 will mark the 30th anniversary of Margaret Thatcher becoming Prime Minister. Her spectre still looms large over British politics. She is as celebrated on the right as she is hated on the left. Since her frailty became apparent there has been intermittent speculation that the Labour government would consider awarding her a state funeral upon her death – reports which are met with derision and horror by many Labour voters, and then swiftly denied. But why shouldn’t a Labour Government, or indeed any government, mark the contribution a Prime Minister has made to the nation by awarding them a state funeral?

Having been born in 1985 I did not become interested in politics predisposed with the standard wrath reserved for Thatcher. I grew up in a family that was at best apolitical, at worst Conservative. It is only over the years that I have grasped the enormous amount of damage she inflicted on this country – how she decimated entire industries; how she sought to destroy the trade union movement; how she supported South Africa’s racist apartheid regime and branded Nelson Mandela a terrorist. All of these are deplorable actions by a deplorable Prime Minister.

But whether we like the actions of a Prime Minister or not we recognise that they have been democratically elected to the highest level of the profession of politics and enacted policies that have shaped our nation. Our Prime Ministers have represented Great Britain around the globe and been bestowed with the powers of the Crown.

Typically state funerals are reserved exclusively for monarchs. If granted, it would make Lady Thatcher the first premier since Sir Winston Churchill in 1965 to be given the honour. In the 20th Century there were two other state funerals for non-royals: military commander Frederick Roberts and ex-Ulster Unionist Party leader Edward Carson. In the 19th Century, five state funerals were granted to non-royal personages. The exceptional cases were Lord Nelson after his death at Trafalgar; Charles Darwin; and the Duke of Wellington, Lord Palmerston and William Gladstone, three former prime ministers.

But why should the highest honour upon death generally be reserved for members of the Royal Family who have been born in to privilege and power and not be awarded to those who have deliberately dedicated their lives to public service – for better or worse.

Thatcher was, after all, Prime Minister for 11 years, our first female Prime Minister and the longest serving PM of the post-war period. Even those who want to disagree with just about everything she did have to recognise that she was an important historical figure.

The fact that Margaret Thatcher was a divisive figure should not deter us from marking her time as Prime Minister. Winston Churchill was unceremoniously turfed from office at the first opportunity following the Second World War yet he received the ceremonial honour.

I don’t simply wish to make the case for Margaret Thatcher to be bestowed this honour as I believe there are many who are far more deserving than she. I believe that it is a recognition that should be given to all Prime Ministers.

By marking the contribution that our Prime Minister makes we can begin to establish a better link between politicians and society. It would be an attempt to stop the public seeing all politicians as the ‘enemy’ and help to change the generally cynical attitude that is so prevalent towards those who enter political public service.

It is simply about acknowledging someone who served and led their country even if you do not agree with the approach that they took. It also clearly states that we believe any citizen should be able to recieve the high honours of society, not just those who are of Royal birth.

I personally will happily mark the passing of Thatcherism at the same time we as a nation mark the passing of Thatcher. Read more...

The fall of Callaghan

Today is the 30th anniversary of the vote of no confidence which brought down the minority Callaghan government, leading to Margaret Thatcher's victory in the May general election, is being marked by an evening of programming on the Parliament channel from 6pm tonight. (There will be no television footage of the debate itself, of course, as cameras had not been admitted).

There was a very interesting Roy Hattersley insider account, in last Sunday's Observer magazine. It was perhaps somewhat buried, and I thought it was worth flagging up here.

Hattersley still believes the government was wrong not to bring a dying MP 200 miles to the Palace of Westminster, where his vote could have counted had the ambulance been parked outside. (A tie would have saved the government, which lost by one, were the MP still alive). Without the rigours of the trip, he died a week later.

Hattersley was also keen to buy Enoch Powell with a vague promise of a gas pipeline, which Callagan refused to countenance.

Whether an Autumn 1979 election would have seen the government do better than in May is difficult to judge. Probably, the seeds of destruction were sown much earlier. Might it all have been different if Callaghan had not led the Cabinet opposition to the Wilson-Castle trade union white paper 'In Place of Strife'? Read more...

The fall of Callaghan

Today is the 30th anniversary of the vote of no confidence which brought down the minority Callaghan government, leading to Margaret Thatcher's victory in the May general election, is being marked by an evening of programming on the Parliament channel from 6pm tonight. (There will be no television footage of the debate itself, of course, as cameras had not been admitted).

There was a very interesting Roy Hattersley insider account, in last Sunday's Observer magazine. It was perhaps somewhat buried, and I thought it was worth flagging up here.

Hattersley still believes the government was wrong not to bring a dying MP 200 miles to the Palace of Westminster, where his vote could have counted had the ambulance been parked outside. (A tie would have saved the government, which lost by one, were the MP still alive). Without the rigours of the trip, he died a week later.

Hattersley was also keen to buy Enoch Powell with a vague promise of a gas pipeline, which Callagan refused to countenance.

Whether an Autumn 1979 election would have seen the government do better than in May is difficult to judge. Probably, the seeds of destruction were sown much earlier. Might it all have been different if Callaghan had not led the Cabinet opposition to the Wilson-Castle trade union white paper 'In Place of Strife'? Read more...

IDS: Thatcher would have lost in 1983 without Healey

That is the surprising claim made by Iain Duncan Smith in a very lively Fabian Review interview with Mary Riddell, which is previewed in today's Daily Telegraph.

The former Tory leader seems an unusual source for a fascinating piece of alternative "what if?" history as we approach the 30th anniversary of 1979. It sounds, to Labour ears as if IDS has an uncannily similar reading to the Bennite account of our recent political history. I don't think I am convinced. sent the interview to Denis Healey - among the great Fabians, having contributed to New Fabian Essays back in 1951 - a couple of weeks ago, but I don't know if he will have any response to it.

The former Conservative leader also believes his own party must take greater responsibility for the impact of the 1980s on the social problems he now studies at the Centre for Social Justice.

Once, IDS seemed the creature of Margaret Thatcher, who endorsed his leadership bid. With the 30th anniversary of Thatcher’s accession imminent, does he now regret the brutal edge of Thatcherism or acknowledge the harm caused by rampant individualism? “Britain’s position by 1978/9 was appalling – we were just disappearing as a nation. It simply was not possible to go on any longer.

“You have to remember it was Denis Healey who did most of the serious hard work, the heavy lifting, before Mrs Thatcher came in. Had she come in without Healey’s work in the IMF, I don’t think she’d have lasted two years. She would have been out in 1983. Getting the economy back to a point where it was profitable and we had some sort of enterprise was [vital].

“But yes, what happened next was in some ways [unfortunate]. We forgot that, while the economy was moving on, society itself was not really ready for this. Swathes of the population got left behind in the process...The gap between the bottom socio-economic group and the rest started to grow, and it’s grown ever since. Under Labour it’s grown almost faster in some senses.

“While I’m not going to point the finger and say the changes made in the Eighties were wrong, we didn’t have any real sense of where this might go go and what needed to happen. Big social reforms should have taken place then, and they never did.” This partial denunciation of Thatcherism by her protege and heir will strike some Tories as a heresy. But few leading politicians are as familiar as IDS with the sink estates that symbolise the price of inequality.

Thatcher’s policy of selling council houses and failing to invest the profits in social housing added up, as he admits, to a disaster. “Nobody really thought about what happens if you allow only the most broken families to exist on housing estates. You create a sort of ghetto in which the children who grow up there repeat what they see around them.”

This critique reflects IDS' increasing emphasis on the need for a cross-party and sustained approach to problems which are inter-generational in nature. Riddell writes that he has become the "antithesis of a party tribalist", while IDS says he believes that Gordon Brown can win the next election.

“I think there must be an outside chance. What would be required?” he wonders. “The public turns round and says maybe things are picking up, maybe he was right.”

Riddell comments that "While such musings are unlikely to warm the heart of David Cameron, the Conservative leader owes much to Mr Duncan Smith. If caring Conservatism has any credibility, then it is rooted in the IDS project".

* The Spring issue of Fabian Review, focusing on the politics of the family, will be published in April.

* UPDATE: Many Fabian members (as well as Next Left readers) may recall IDS' similar comments on Council House sales at the very well attended Saturday night fringe in Manchester last September, hosted by the Fabians and the Centre for Social Justice, with the End Child Poverty coalition and the Webb Memorial Trust; he made the point at the follow-up Conservative fringe the following week, being concerned to show that he was willing to make similar arguments to the different party audiences in the search for a cross-party consensus on social questions. Read more...

IDS: Thatcher would have lost in 1983 without Healey

That is the surprising claim made by Iain Duncan Smith in a very lively Fabian Review interview with Mary Riddell, which is previewed in today's Daily Telegraph.

The former Tory leader seems an unusual source for a fascinating piece of alternative "what if?" history as we approach the 30th anniversary of 1979. It sounds, to Labour ears as if IDS has an uncannily similar reading to the Bennite account of our recent political history. I don't think I am convinced. sent the interview to Denis Healey - among the great Fabians, having contributed to New Fabian Essays back in 1951 - a couple of weeks ago, but I don't know if he will have any response to it.

The former Conservative leader also believes his own party must take greater responsibility for the impact of the 1980s on the social problems he now studies at the Centre for Social Justice.

Once, IDS seemed the creature of Margaret Thatcher, who endorsed his leadership bid. With the 30th anniversary of Thatcher’s accession imminent, does he now regret the brutal edge of Thatcherism or acknowledge the harm caused by rampant individualism? “Britain’s position by 1978/9 was appalling – we were just disappearing as a nation. It simply was not possible to go on any longer.

“You have to remember it was Denis Healey who did most of the serious hard work, the heavy lifting, before Mrs Thatcher came in. Had she come in without Healey’s work in the IMF, I don’t think she’d have lasted two years. She would have been out in 1983. Getting the economy back to a point where it was profitable and we had some sort of enterprise was [vital].

“But yes, what happened next was in some ways [unfortunate]. We forgot that, while the economy was moving on, society itself was not really ready for this. Swathes of the population got left behind in the process...The gap between the bottom socio-economic group and the rest started to grow, and it’s grown ever since. Under Labour it’s grown almost faster in some senses.

“While I’m not going to point the finger and say the changes made in the Eighties were wrong, we didn’t have any real sense of where this might go go and what needed to happen. Big social reforms should have taken place then, and they never did.” This partial denunciation of Thatcherism by her protege and heir will strike some Tories as a heresy. But few leading politicians are as familiar as IDS with the sink estates that symbolise the price of inequality.

Thatcher’s policy of selling council houses and failing to invest the profits in social housing added up, as he admits, to a disaster. “Nobody really thought about what happens if you allow only the most broken families to exist on housing estates. You create a sort of ghetto in which the children who grow up there repeat what they see around them.”

This critique reflects IDS' increasing emphasis on the need for a cross-party and sustained approach to problems which are inter-generational in nature. Riddell writes that he has become the "antithesis of a party tribalist", while IDS says he believes that Gordon Brown can win the next election.

“I think there must be an outside chance. What would be required?” he wonders. “The public turns round and says maybe things are picking up, maybe he was right.”

Riddell comments that "While such musings are unlikely to warm the heart of David Cameron, the Conservative leader owes much to Mr Duncan Smith. If caring Conservatism has any credibility, then it is rooted in the IDS project".

* The Spring issue of Fabian Review, focusing on the politics of the family, will be published in April.

* UPDATE: Many Fabian members (as well as Next Left readers) may recall IDS' similar comments on Council House sales at the very well attended Saturday night fringe in Manchester last September, hosted by the Fabians and the Centre for Social Justice, with the End Child Poverty coalition and the Webb Memorial Trust; he made the point at the follow-up Conservative fringe the following week, being concerned to show that he was willing to make similar arguments to the different party audiences in the search for a cross-party consensus on social questions. Read more...

What If Scargill Had Won?

This is a blog posing a question rather than one giving an opinion. I want the reasoned, informed, sometimes bizarre comments from the nextleft community to give me a range of answers to my 'what if..? question.

Today is 25 years since the minor's strike and I heard a piece on Radio 4 with Scargill speaking to a socialist group. His passionate voice hasn't changed a bit * and I could imagine myself as a 10 year old in front of our black and white TV. At the time there was a real sense that this would be a turning point, and so it was. The fascinating bit is that Scargill said a Tory cabinet minister of the time has since told him that the minors were so close to winning out at one point.

If Scargill and the striking minors had won, presumably the Thatcher government would have fallen. Would Kinnock have taken their place and suddenly become the hero of the minors and the country? Would the country have been split? And would figures like Blair have ever seen the light of day?

Blog away...

* I must admit part of me yearns for that sort of passion to be heard in politics nowadays, even though it may be mis-placed. Read more...

What If Scargill Had Won?

This is a blog posing a question rather than one giving an opinion. I want the reasoned, informed, sometimes bizarre comments from the nextleft community to give me a range of answers to my 'what if..? question.

Today is 25 years since the minor's strike and I heard a piece on Radio 4 with Scargill speaking to a socialist group. His passionate voice hasn't changed a bit * and I could imagine myself as a 10 year old in front of our black and white TV. At the time there was a real sense that this would be a turning point, and so it was. The fascinating bit is that Scargill said a Tory cabinet minister of the time has since told him that the minors were so close to winning out at one point.

If Scargill and the striking minors had won, presumably the Thatcher government would have fallen. Would Kinnock have taken their place and suddenly become the hero of the minors and the country? Would the country have been split? And would figures like Blair have ever seen the light of day?

Blog away...

* I must admit part of me yearns for that sort of passion to be heard in politics nowadays, even though it may be mis-placed. Read more...

If cutting spending was so popular why didn't Thatcher or Reagan achieve it?

That's a question that I address in a commentary in this week's Newsweek, which the magazine titles 'How Big Government Never Left', and which happens to coincide with the return of the politics as spending and taxation to the centre of British political debate.

The too easy answer to the post-defeat inquest on the US right is that Dubya has not stuck to small government principles.

That's clearly true - but too shallow. After all, the difference with past conservative administrations is one of degree, rather than direction. The frequently offered contrast with the golden age of the Reagan ascendancy is largely a myth if the quest is for greater intellectual consistency in politics.

"Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem", said Reagan. But government spending grew all the same - and there was an increase in the number of civilian Federal employees. (In contrast, there was a reduction under Bill Clinton!).

In truth, as George Packer noted in an excellent New Yorker essay:

[Reagan] had failed to limit the size of government, which, besides anti-Communism, was the abiding passion of Reagan’s political career and of the conservative movement. He didn’t come close to achieving it and didn’t try very hard, recognizing early that the public would be happy to have its taxes cut as long as its programs weren’t touched. And Reagan was a poor steward of the unglamorous but necessary operations of the state.

In Thatcher's Britain, the Prime Minister probably did wake up every day asking how she could shrink the state.

And yet, the Institute of Fiscal Studies will confirm that, to quote

During Margaret Thatcher’s premiership public spending grew in real terms by an average of 1.1% a year, while during John Major’s premiership it grew by an average of 2.4%. (Source: IFS PDF file, page 3)

In Britain, public spending as a proportion of GDP was 43 percent in 1980 and 41.9 percent in 1996.

Cutting government sounds popular in the abstract. But it is much less so when it comes down to anything concrete and the real political choices, once we get past the obligatory soundbites where all parties offer a 'war on waste'.

Whether it is child protection, saving post offices, investing in health, education and childcare, getting the mortgage market moving again, or protecting us from the worst risks of a recession, all of the concrete calls are for government to do more, not less.

Smaller government is much less popular than the right imagines. And even their most ideologically motivated political champions knew it. Read more...

If cutting spending was so popular why didn't Thatcher or Reagan achieve it?

That's a question that I address in a commentary in this week's Newsweek, which the magazine titles 'How Big Government Never Left', and which happens to coincide with the return of the politics as spending and taxation to the centre of British political debate.

The too easy answer to the post-defeat inquest on the US right is that Dubya has not stuck to small government principles.

That's clearly true - but too shallow. After all, the difference with past conservative administrations is one of degree, rather than direction. The frequently offered contrast with the golden age of the Reagan ascendancy is largely a myth if the quest is for greater intellectual consistency in politics.

"Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem", said Reagan. But government spending grew all the same - and there was an increase in the number of civilian Federal employees. (In contrast, there was a reduction under Bill Clinton!).

In truth, as George Packer noted in an excellent New Yorker essay:

[Reagan] had failed to limit the size of government, which, besides anti-Communism, was the abiding passion of Reagan’s political career and of the conservative movement. He didn’t come close to achieving it and didn’t try very hard, recognizing early that the public would be happy to have its taxes cut as long as its programs weren’t touched. And Reagan was a poor steward of the unglamorous but necessary operations of the state.

In Thatcher's Britain, the Prime Minister probably did wake up every day asking how she could shrink the state.

And yet, the Institute of Fiscal Studies will confirm that, to quote

During Margaret Thatcher’s premiership public spending grew in real terms by an average of 1.1% a year, while during John Major’s premiership it grew by an average of 2.4%. (Source: IFS PDF file, page 3)

In Britain, public spending as a proportion of GDP was 43 percent in 1980 and 41.9 percent in 1996.

Cutting government sounds popular in the abstract. But it is much less so when it comes down to anything concrete and the real political choices, once we get past the obligatory soundbites where all parties offer a 'war on waste'.

Whether it is child protection, saving post offices, investing in health, education and childcare, getting the mortgage market moving again, or protecting us from the worst risks of a recession, all of the concrete calls are for government to do more, not less.

Smaller government is much less popular than the right imagines. And even their most ideologically motivated political champions knew it. Read more...