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

There is Such a Thing as Context

In an interview for Women’s Own in 1987 then Prime Minister Mrs Thatcher declared:

“I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand ‘I have a problem, it is the Government’s job to cope with it!’ or ‘I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!’ ‘I am homeless, the Government must house me!’ and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first.  It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation.”

Unfortunately, this interview is rarely seen in full, and instead the phrase “there is no such thing as society” is all that is quoted.  Sadly this has been hijacked as an example of greed and selfishness.  But reading the whole interview, especially within the context of the current riots, there is a poignant message.

 

The Death Penalty

My last post pointed out how out of touch Members of our Parliament are by spending vast amounts over the retail price for items.  At the end of this week, in an attempt to connect with the public, the government launches it’s e-petition website, where petitions with 100,000 voters signing up will be discussed in the Commons.

Political blogger Guido Fawkes has used this opportunity to petition the Government on restoring the Death Penalty, “the Ministry of Justice should map out the necessary legislative steps which will be required to restore the death penalty for the murder of children and police officers when killed in the line of duty.”

The death penalty in the UK was abolished in 1969, with the last execution by hanging taking place a few years earlier in 1964.  However, since then polls have consistently shown that there is majority public support for reinstating it, while in Parliament the issue has always been heavily defeated when it has been voted on.  The most recent polls done in September and November 2010 by YouGov show strong that there is still strong support for its reintroduction.  The September poll found 51% supported the death penalty for murder, while the November poll found 74% supported it for murder in ‘certain circumstances’.

Since launching his campaign Guido has received widespread support amongst his readers and also from MPs.  Currently MPs Philip Davis, Priti Patel, Andrew Turner, David Nuttall, Chris Kelly, Roger Gale and Julian Brazier have all shown their support for Guido and his campaign.  David Cameron however, in a past statement in Cameron on Cameron by Dylan Jones says:

“If someone murdered one of my children then emotionally, obviously I would want to kill them. How could you not? But there have been too many cases of things going wrong, of the wrong people being executed, of evidence coming to light after the execution, and sometimes there is just too much of an element of doubt. And I just don’t honestly think that in a civilised society like ours that you can have the death penalty any more.”

One of the strongest supporters of capital punishment was Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.  According to Richard Vinen in his book, Thatcher’s Britain, Mrs Thatcher favoured the restoration of the death penalty and regretted corporal punishment for young offenders was no longer realistic.  Mrs Thatcher was so strong on her support for its reinstatement, he goes on to say, “her Liberal opponent in Finchley believed it was her only strong conviction.”  Most recently, David Davis in 2003, while Shadow Home Secretary said he would bring back capital punishment for serial killers, due to the premeditated nature of these crimes.  However, despite strong public support and backing from a small number of influential politicians, the death penalty remains off the statute books, the last attempt at repealing this decision was in 1994 where it was solidly defeated in Parliament.

Reintroducing the death penalty in the UK is a very serious road to take, and one which should not be taken lightly, you are after all handing the state the right to kill someone, all be it in exceptional circumstances.  But this should not put us off, we are not living in an abusive dictatorial state like those experiencing uprisings at the moment, we are as pointed out by David Cameron, a mature and civilised society.  The benefit of being such a society is that we can administer such strong policies properly, being able to handle something as potent as the death penalty shows we have moved on greatly.

David Cameron is also right when he says there have been too many cases where things have gone wrong.  Again, that maybe the case in less advanced countries, but I reiterate, the United Kingdom is an advanced country.  The science behind evidence has improved greatly due to technologies such as DNA, meaning evidence is becoming more and more reliable and unquestionable.  As the quality of evidence improves, so does the justification for the death penalty.

The idea of prison is to punish and reform.  However, crimes such as child murder and serial murder are so abhorrent, these people cannot be reformed and keeping them locked away is simply not a heavy enough punishment.  Very often in these criminals are locked away to protect them from the victims and the public, as well as the public from them, who would carry out vigilante justice because of the nature of the crimes they have committed.  No sentence for such crimes should offer any benefit to the convicted.

There is of course an emotional element in such sentencing, but there is nothing wrong with this, such punishment would at least offer some closure to victims of these crimes, these after all are extremely serious crimes and a different approach needs to be taken.  It would also send out a clear message that such crimes are not tolerated, and that the state will severely punish those who commit such atrocities.  Reintroducing the death penalty would of course need a complete overhaul of the justice system to deal with such a powerful sentence, as the current system is, as those who oppose it point out, not up to the job.

RightBlueView backs and supports Guido Fawkes’ campaign to restore the death penalty.  This does need a serious approach and there are a lot of unanswered questions and issues, and a lot would need to be changed, but this should not be used as an argument to oppose it.

You can sign the petition here:  http://order-order.com/restore-justice/

The Empire Steps Back

Under the rule of Queen Victoria Britain ruled an Empire where ‘the sun never set’, was the worlds Policeman, led the world in technology, industry and sheer power, in what was named Britain’s Imperial Century.

Now in 2011 Britain is sovereign over 14 measly territories, many of which are not even inhabited, has flat growth, is governed by Brussels, is having to drastically reduce its defence ability, and is branded as a “crude colonial power in decline”, by the Argentine President.  Is it therefore any wonder why David Cameron says there is a general feeling the country thinks the best days are behind it and lacks confidence?

Since the end of World War One, Britain has spent its time apologising for its Empire, and rather then standing up as a world power, it has been the job of the government, with the exception of the Thatcher administration, to manage the decline of Britain.

Of course their were dark elements of the British Empire, the appalling atrocities towards the end of the Empire during the Mau Mau uprising being an example of just one.  This aside, for Britain these were our best days.  Look at Victorian architecture for example, it’s bold, extravagant and proud.  Compare this to the modest buildings of the 1950s, and the high rise monolithic slabs of concrete which disease our city skylines now, and you will get a sense of what I mean.

There are many reasons why 70 years after Queen Victoria’s reign Britain was coined, “the sick man of Europe”.  For one, Britain had fought two costly wars, which had wrecked it economically and physically, meaning it could no longer sustain its vast Empire.  On top of this, as the world entered the Nuclear era, Britain was pushed aside as the United States and Russia emerged as the worlds undisputed superpowers.

However, what really changed was Britain’s attitude.  In an attempt to distance itself from Nazi Germany’s quest for Lebensraum (living space and raw materials) and belief in German superiority, Britain shunned its pursuit of a global Empire.

Now in the 21st Century this humble approach has gone too far, countries such as China and India are not embarrassed of their goals to become great powerful nations, and why should they?

We have become so scared by our experiences of what Eric Hobsbawn, describes as an ‘age of extremes’, that Britain is afraid of pursuing self interests.

The irony is, if we are to create a better, more stable world, we must not be afraid of pursuing goals which will benefit us.  In the words of Margaret Thatcher, “No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he’d only had good intentions; he had money as well.”

‘Camer-wrong’

“To those waiting with bated breath for that favourite media catchphrase, the U-turn, I have only one thing to say:  You turn if you want to.  The Lady’s not for turning!”  Margaret Thatcher, Conservative Party Conference, 1980.

Since then governments strength has almost been defined by a ‘U-turn index’.  Ignoring calls for change showed strength of character, making them showed the government was weak and too populist.  Unlike Mrs Thatcher’s Government, this Conservative Government has left little time for bated breath as it performs U-turn after U-turn.  But does this necessarily mean Cameron and the Coalition are weak?

Whether it does or it doesn’t actually misses the point.  Margaret Thatcher didn’t make a U-turn in 1980 because she was right and she knew it, and the success of her Government shows this.  If she had made a ‘U-turn’ having know she was right, then that would have been weak.

The difference with Cameron and the Coalition, is that they have made ‘U-turns’ because they were wrong, and they realised it, not simply because they bowed down to pressure.

For example:

• Selling off forests – Wrong
• Cuts to school sports – Wrong
• Prison sentence reforms – Wrong
• Healthcare reforms – Wrong
• Withdrawing 500 troops out of Afghanistan by next summer – Wrong

Cameron is right when he says, “It’s not strength or leadership to be living in fear of being criticised for changing your mind.  I don’t make any apology for listening to people and wanting to change things.”  ‘U-turns’ on these policies doesn’t show weakness of character, it instead shows a Government that is not thinking when it develops policy.  Cameron can dress it up all he likes.  In reality, what it does show is a Government that is making policy which everyone can see is wrong.

Nevermind the virtues of a Government with strength of character, we need to be worrying whether this is coupled with good solid policy making.  If the House of Lords Reform and Elected Police Chiefs are anything to go by, a Government with strength of character and the wrong policies leads to a dangerous straight.