There’s recently been a lot of talk that apparently the only thing 13 years of Labour governments has achieved is that we are all now conservative. Well, to be frank, this is ain’t true. A recent poll conducted by Comres and published yesterday in the Independent (the one that shows that also shows the Tory lead has shrunk to a mere 7 points) shows that more people identify themselves as Labour rather than Tory (37-31 in fact-
http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/02/more-people-identify-as-labour-as-public-remain-sceptical-of-tory-economic-policy/
). Personally, from seeing these figures, it shows that the most Dave can achieve at the next general election, the very most, is a small Conservative majority (around 20 or so).
Britain, well and truly progressive since 1964!
Max
New Labour is in many ways, good and bad, old Tory. So if people “define” themselves as Labour, which I very much doubt, they will be talking about New Labour not “true” Labour. Since the days of Maggie Thatcher Britain’s politics and people have been camped firmly on the conservative center right and this won’t change any time soon.
I think BUFC is right in a sense but I think the picture is a lot less clear cut than he insists. On issues such as European integration, immigration and policing, the majority of people are firmly in the conservative (with a little c) camp. On other issues especially the provision of healthcare, education and what may be deemed moral and social liberty (homosexuality, race, abortion etc.), I think the majority are firmly in the liberal/ progressive camp. On everything else, people’s opinions fluctuate.
Hence I think both Labour and the Conservatives have been forced to move towards the centre ground. Away from positions that they have previously held, to less familiar ground, to accommodate the fact that most people, are progressive in some ways, and conservative in others. That is possibly the biggest legacy of the eighties.
Fair enough points but I was originally trying to focus on what party people identify at the moment. The last line was just a random jibe, lol!
In a sense I agree Sean however people forget that, despite appearances, the Thatcher years were more radical and “liberal” than people care to remember. For example she:
* advocated free market ideology – a system blind to class creed and colour,
* she tore up the banking code making mortgages freely available when they had previously been rationed,
* She paved the way for easy credit which meant responsible people could have access to more money when they needed it
* She advocated the sale of council homes which gave working class people a real chance to own their own home accepted
* She accepted closer integration (despite the rhetoric) with the EU,
* She placed unwavering pressure on communism to reform and free millions of people,
* She took union members out of the grip of union bosses by democratising (not destroying) the unions
These were all very progressive and “liberal” policies. However as always the paradox of the Thatcher years is “if you want peace you must prepare for war” and sometimes you have to deploy “illiberal methods to achieve liberal ends”. If we were to look at the Thatcher years purely on “action” and “appearance” you could argue that she was very illiberal, and there are some obvious examples eg Section 28 to support this. However the underlying aim of the Thatcher years, and its ultimate legacy, was a world more free, more fair, more peacful and more prosperous than the one she inherited. You can’t write history in the midst of it and the assessment of the Thatcher years at the time are too emotive and misleading to be accepted as part of a fair and balanced assessment of her legacy. Thatcher herself may have fallen out of favour with the British electorate but they had a taste for her politics and her revolution and they’ve wanted more of the same ever since. Britain’s “center ground” is firmly on the right.
Well, in an earlier post, you argued that Blair and Brown’s years would not be judged as favourably as Thatcher’s and Major’s which, maybe correct, but is again uncertain.
I would only say, that while I accept governments achievements can only be fully understood in hindsight, at the same time, governments govern for the here and the now. They have obligations to the people who vote for them, not just to future generations. Ultimately, many of Thatcher’s policies created massive problems in the short and middle term. Unemployment, disruption of communities as well as a whole host of other problems. Not all of these can be justified by the long term as well, because a number of these failed in the long term. Obviously the same can and will be said about Labour. But to argue that the ends justify the means, is not and should not be an ever-valid excuse in politics. The underlying aims of anything are not, ultimately what people get judged on, it is what actually occurs. You cannot vindicate the career of a government or a particular politician by what they intend to do unless you compare it with what they actually do. In that sense, I think Thatcher will compare less favourably than you yourself believe, though being on opposite sides of the debate, that is probably to be expected.
On the center-right, all I will say in the final instance it is purely Thatcher’s herself and not her politics that have fell out of favour, then 1997, 2001 and 2005 are inexplicable. There will, naturally be the allegation that is often thrown around that New Labour is in many ways Thatcherite. To an extent this is justified but in other ways it very much is not. Yes, many of Thatcher’s policies have been continued by Labour, but there is, I would argue, nobody more distinctly Thatcherite than William Hague or Ian Duncan Smith. They lost their subsequent elections when leading the Conservative party. While Britain is, in comparison to other countries such as Sweden and the Dutch, conservative, in comparison to others, France, USA and Italy, it more progressive.
Ultimately, I believe the 80s witnessed many people, on both sides of the spectrum witness two extremes (militant socialism and economic neo-liberalism) engaged in battles of various forms, and most people shifted firmly to the centre.