Thatcher, Thatcher…. Materialistic Snatcher?

Not a political day goes past without some mention of Margaret Thatcher’s Government.  The Right-wing use her as a benchmark on which to compare the present Tory led Coalition, while the Left-wing use her as a negative comparison.

Yesterday on The First Post there was an interesting article titled, Riots: Were they Mrs Thatcher’s fault of not?  Attributing such despicable behaviour to Britain’s greatest Prime Minister is offensive, but through a quote from Ian Duncan Smith in the article there is a glimmer of a connection.

“Under Margaret Thatcher, he said, the Conservative government “freed up the markets”, but “missed the next bit”. This resulted in “a sort of mid-20th Century society, many locked away in welfarism, and a 21st Century economy.””

I have previously argued on this Blog that our world is made up of two separate sectors, Economic and Social, and both are as important as each other.  This is touched on by Ian Duncan Smith.

“But Smith fell short of blaming Thatcher. Instead, he said what was still needed was social and welfare reform. Thatcher knew this, but “never got there”, and neither have her successors of either party.”

Many of Margaret Thatcher’s speeches refer to social issues, it was something she felt to be important.  Unfortunately, when she came to power in 1979 there was so much to do in both the Economic and Social sector; and the country’s Economics too precedent.  Quite simply, 1979 – 1990 was not long enough to carry out everything that needed doing, and nobody after her took the baton.

It was not Thatcher’s Economics per say, they were immensely beneficial for Britain, it was the fact they were not coupled with a strong Social Policy which caused problems.  This is where, Pankaj Mishra from the San Francisco Chronicle, and Polly Toynbee from the Guardian, quoted in the article are wrong.  Solid Social Policy provides Economic Policy with discipline, without it the problems Mishra and Toynbee talk of are created later down the line.

By freeing up the markets and through privatisation, the Thatcher administration created the foundations for almost anyone to make immense wealth.  However, unlike the traditional wealth creation methods which many people were used to, which involved physically doing something through hard work, this method created wealth without the need to break into a sweat.  In other words, wealth could be created by doing almost nothing physically, and there was nothing physical created at the end.

This move from the secondary sector to the higher earning tertiary sector transformed Britain from the ‘sick man of Europe’, to an Economic powerhouse in which anyone could play a part in.

In a similar way to the school playground game, ‘Whisper down the Lane’, or ‘Chinese Whispers’ as some may call it, without a clear Social Policy the message of the high earning tertiary sector over time became corrupted.  This coupled with a too generous welfare system, in which one often gets more money doing nothing then they would working, and a lack of discipline in schools, has created a message of being able to have what you want without working for it.

This corrupted mentality has caused the problems of which Thatcher’s critics often speak of, and the recent riots were a grotesque representation them.  If anyone is to blame for these riots it would be those after Thatcher who diverged from a winning game plan.

“Pennies don’t fall from heaven, they have to be earned here on earth.”  Margaret Thatcher at the Lord Mayor’s Banquet in 1979.

 

The First Post article which I refer to can be read here:  http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/83266,news-comment,news-politics,riots-were-they-mrs-thatchers-fault-or-not

‘Happynomics’

Every Government has a focus of what it would like to achieve, the Thatcher Government’s focus for example, was to rebuild Britain’s economy, Blair’s was…. “education, education, education” to name a few.

On a more general scale a Government’s purpose should be to provide the best economic conditions for growth, and allow everyone to have the best life they possibly can.  These obviously overlap, and often one will drive the other, but there is a distinction.

The problem which occurs in dire economic times like these is Governments can get carried away with trying to drive the economy forwards.  Often this is at the expense of other areas, for example the environment.

Unfortunately, The National Planning Policy Framework which is due out this month is an example of the above.  Relaxing planning restrictions such as the laws governing building on Green Belts may drive economic growth, and provide much needed housing, but brings with it a plethora of negative externalities.

The ability of developers to build almost as they please in Green Belt towns and villages across the UK is a worrying prospect.  Cottages being overlooked by densely populated glass high rise, or natural beauty spots being turned into housing estates could become a reality.

Whilst trying not to sound like a watery, ‘flower power’ Liberal, this would undoubtedly destroy the character of these areas and destroy a way of life for some.  Some of these areas thrive economically because of their natural beauty or peaceful remoteness, so there is also an economic argument to be made.

Economics is important, but we should not let it over-ride everything else.  It is also strange why David Cameron has said he wants a ‘Happiness Index’ because he believes it to be important, yet his Government is going forwards with a policy which could be detrimental to happiness.