I’m still reading When The Lights Went Out – Britain in the Seventies.  It is all about events thirty years ago, but has some very topical echoes, especially on the very scary page 413…To put in in context, Labour had been in power for a couple of terms. The Tories had a new leader who we now know went on to emasculate the unions, drag the country into recession and abandon the working classes when it got there, and preside over the destruction of many industries which ruined some parts of the country for generations. So what was known about Thatcher’s intentions and policies at the time?
Unlike Sherman or Keith Joseph, Thatcher was a sensitive enough political operator to realize that there was a limited public appetite in the Britain of 1977 and 1978 for further transformation of the post-war order. During this period – indeed during the whole period between her election as leader and her first general election campaign – she permitted the publication of only a single guide to her party’s policies, ‘The Right Approach’, a 1976 document so carefully designed to strike a balance between Thatcherite and Heathite Toryism that it was actually written by her enemies in the Conservative Research Department.
‘It was a fudge,’ wrote Thatcher later of the document’s ambiguous, detail-free proposals for controlling wages and prices.
Between 1975 and 1978, her own speeches, while full of bold generalisations about the failings of the Left and the virtues of the free market, were quite often vague – if not downright misleading – about what a Thatcher government would actually do. ‘Let me make it absolutely clear that the next Conservative government will look forward to discussion and consultation with the trade union movement about the policies that are needed to save our country,’ she told the Conservative Party conference in 1976.
Her biographer calls this period ‘Thatcherism under wraps’ and she did it so well that even some of the right wingers in her party worried that she was going to be liberal and reasonable… they described her as ‘Cautious Margaret’.
The bit about avoiding mention of any detailed policies and trying to give an appearance of being touchy-feely sounds very much like the current leader of the opposition.  The question is, will the country take the risk of history repeating itself and fall for it all?
I don’t think anyone thinks that their history will repeat itself. The idea seems to be that only happens to other, more foolish, people…
History always repeats itself – Labour governments always leave a financial crisis in their wake and the Natural Party of Government is called to step in.
But really – why are you so unsure of the Tory policies, surely they are obvious. After 12 years of Labour rule the country is broke and we are in for a period of belt tightening. In fact even if Labour were to be raised from the dead and get reelected they will have to cut spending in exactly the same way as the Tories will.
Say it often enough and everyone will believe you – is that the idea?
LOL – still in denial eh Skuds?.
As much as you and Macavity might like to believe otherwise the country is broke and until measures are taken to put the public finances back on a sustainable footing – ie: living within your means and not on borrowed money – then we will not return to a stable economy.
But I see that Macavity is still saying that there will be no cuts in public spending – just increases ad-infinitum.
The problem is that the Tories might tighten belts before we get into recovery, and in so doing prolong the agony. We all remember how long it took to get over the 1990s recession thanks to the policies of the Major government (which itself managed to generate record deficits and a record level of total debt).
I don’t believe that any party or it’s supporters should be arrogant enough to assert the ‘Natural Party’ gubbins. It’s called hubris – it got Blair/Brown, and it will get Cameron too.
Trouble is Danivon that there is absolutely no evidence that your preference for even more borrowing and spending will make a blind bit of difference.
All the recessions of the last 30 years have taken the same amount of time to recover from no matter what the policies involved.
But I know I will never break your conviction that any problem cannot be solved by yet more government spending.
So 7 Ministers gone – a successful day for Labour?
So the fact that our GDP fell by less than that of Germany in the last quarter is not some kind of indicator (Cameron held up Merkel’s opposition to borrowing as a reason to attack Browns policies a few months ago, I bet he doesn’t mention it again).
7 ministers gone is disastrous (although I’ll not shed a tear for some of them myself). But you seem to be jumping into the hubris thing with two feet…
is ‘Hubris’ your word of the week Danivon?
What is hubris is proclamations for the last 10 years from the Labour Government (and their press officers) that Macavities handling of the economy had abolished the economic cycle – I’m sure you remember all the ‘no more boom & bust’ nonsense.
Now that is hubris…
Surely it is Macavity’s rather than Macavities? Of Macavity (belonging to?) rather than a plural…are you that thick Ash?
Not much hubris there pal.
Perhaps, Ash, I recognise the hubris of Blair. Indeed, I was observing caution back in 1997. My feeling then was summed up as “happy, but not satisfied”, and since that time I’ve been an critic within the Labour Party of various policies. I’m not really one for the triumphalism (except for when Fulham do better than their rivals).
However, the economy has also some large part been brought low by the hubris of unfettered city trading and the hubris of American financial overoptimism across all sectors. It’s a powerful force, and I can understand why you as a rah-rah cheerleader for the Tories don’t like the idea that it may apply to you.
Oh I know world events apply to everyone – you (and your party members) are the one’s that forget that.
We had the longest period of economic growth in recent history – but instead of noticing that worlds events contributed to that you put it all down to Macavity’s economic prowess.
Had you actually believed that world events might impact on the UK economy you might have put aside some money during the good times to pay for the inevitable bad times – as it was you bought this nonsense that there would be no more busts and kept borrowing and spending like a drunken sailor in a brothel.
Macavity even today thinks he can go on borrowing and spending ad-infinitum. When the Tories take over next year there is going to be some real bad cut-backs. cut-backs that will be far worse than they should be had this shower been more ‘prudent’ with our money.
I agree with you on one thing in that post:
“When the Tories take over next year there is going to be some real bad cut-backs”.
Yep. We’ll see who bears the brunt of them, won’t we? I bet it’s not the wealthy.
Are you so sure?
After 12 years of your lot in charge we have a nation where gap between the standard of living in the most affluent parts of the nation and its poorest areas has grown and is now wider in Britain than in any other developed economy.
The poorest part of the UK, Anglesey, is now poorer than the poorest parts of Poland.
Your crowd talk a lot but don’t actually seem to achieve much when it comes to protecting the poorest in society – with a record like that it’s hardly surprising that your supporters are defecting to the likes of the BNP.
Ash are you related to Tory boy in the Big Brother house. He has changed his name to Half Wit…
LOL – Theres Me and Danivon having a conversation about economic growth and the widening gulf between the richest and poorest under Labour…
And then up pops Hiro wittering on about Big Bruvva.. – you couldn’t make it up.
“Macavity’s economic prowess.”
Oh good you have learnt something.
All that spending was on things like… Schools, NHS, etc.
So what would the Tories done…let the banks go bust…destroy the infrastructure? (They did that 79-97)
I would trust Gordon any time over the Class A (drugs) members for the Tories. You know the guys who have aligned themselves in Europe with people who think Hitler was alright??
….and Godwin’s Law doth come true once more.
LOL – good one Rob.
I’d never seen that before but it is frighteningly accurate
Still not quite got the hang of spelling yet “Big Bruvva”?? Or are you trying to get “down with the people” like Dave tries to? Econmic growth? I thought you were talking about Old Possum’s book of Practical Cats?