Labour & the Thatcherite ''legacy''

By Hasan Suroor

PERHAPS NOTHING reflects more sharply the confused state of British politics today than the hype over the Thatcherite legacy which, one is led to believe, remains at the heart of modern Britain with its ``new'' work ethic, individual enterprise, less government and more personal freedoms. This is the sense of much of what has been said and written to commemorate Mrs. Margaret Thatcher's years in power - ten years after she was ousted by her own partymen in one of the quietest (but no less famous for that) palace coups at Downing Street. Ironically, her ``legacy'' has been invoked by the same people - called rather dramatically ``men in grey suits'' - who planned her ouster on November 22, 1990.

For the Conservatives to be told that despite all the churning that has gone on in the party since her fall, they remain ``Maggies' children'' is one thing, but to remind Mr. Tony Blair and his ``new'' Labour that they too owe their existence to her sounds like stretching the point a bit. Except that some in the Labour are inclined to believe this and Mr. Blair himself allowed it to pass until she hit him where, these days, it hurts him most - on Europe. She called his Government's decision to commit British troops to a new European rapid reaction force a ``monumental folly''. Coming as it did when he was under siege on the issue from even his friends in the media, her statement cut him to the quick provoking the by-now-famous retort that the Thatcher ``era'' was over and it was time for Britain to move on.

Significantly, even in his moment of anger Mr. Blair did not forget to ``acknowledge'' the virtues of Thatcherism. ``I take nothing away from those things that were done in the 1980s that we have kept,'' he said. Commentators were quick to recall his remarks in the past which reflected his admiration for her style, particularly her ``determination'' which he once said was an ``admirable quality''. Elsewhere he was quoted as praising her economic agenda. ``It was a clear sense of an identifiable project for the Tory party that I did admire,'' is how he had put it. The point was also made that the admiration was mutual with Mrs. Thatcher going out of her way to say nice things about him in the run-up to the 1997 general elections which brought to him 10 Downing Street - and where, according to his critics and those who see him as a natural heir to ``her'' legacy, the ambience in terms of concentration of power has an uncanny resemblance to the days when she occupied it. The ``new'' Labour, it is argued, is actually Thatcherism in stolen clothes. Mr. Simon Jenkins in The Times is certain that it was the ``Iron Lady who made Tony Blair'', and is furious that he should now be pretending ``apostasy from Thatcher''.

Broadly, two arguments are offered to back what for lack of a better expression can be called the ``Thatcher-Blair'' nexus - not in any conspiratorial sense but as a ``natural'' alliance against the ``socialist'' statism of the 1950s and the 1960s. The more facetious is that but for Mrs. Thatcher there would have been no ``new'' Labour, no Tony Blair and therefore no Labour Government today. ``Were it not for the Iron Lady Mr. Blair might be mere attorney-general in a Neil Kinnock Government. Were it not for her, Labour might now be trapped in another union strike, another winter of discontent, another sterling crisis,'' asserts Mr. Jenkins with the advantage that hindsight gives even to the humblest of political pundits. It was her policies, according to the ``Jenkins school'', that made it possible for Mr. Blair to break out of the traditional Labour mould and turn it into a new currency that sold so well in 1997 and looks like getting another run next year.

And what were these ``admirable'' policies? Smashing of the trade unions, ``liberating'' the state from the suffocating burden of ``welfare-ism'', getting people to stand on their own feet (even when they could not) and pulling the Government out of people's lives (putting the private sector into their homes instead). All this created a climate in which Mr. Blair found it easier first to overthrow the old Labour shackles and get a ``new'' signboard, and then to build on Mrs. Thatcher's ``good'' work.

As a theoretical construct, this could win the House debate any day but there is a problem. Remember Mr. Blair came after Mr. John Major. It was Mr. Major who first inherited the Thatcher legacy and had seven years to bask in the ``glory'' of her policies. If those policies were really as glorious as they are being made out to be then why did he lose in 1997? The Tories did not just lose that election but were almost sent packing by angry voters who said they had had enough of them, and even now, with all the odds seemingly stacked against Labour, there is little chance of the Tories returning to power next summer. Clearly, the idea that Labour came to power hanging to the coat-tails of Mrs. Thatcher's ``enlightened'' agenda is a myth.

What helped Mr. Blair break the ``mould'' was an ideological swing away from the model of socialism represented by the ``old'' Labour - a model so decisively rejected by the socialist world itself. It was on the ruins of socialism rather than on the strength of the Thatcherite legacy that Mr. Blair built his ``new'' Labour and captured Downing Street. There is nothing that Labour ``owes'' to the Iron Lady up to the point where it won the 1997 election except a nationwide impatience with her policies which Mr. Major continued to persevere with.

The second argument relating to the ``Thatcher-Blair'' parallel is closer to the truth - that he is pushing her privatisation agenda even more aggressively than she did. It is here that her ``legacy'' is in full cry. Hospitals, schools and other public services are coming under the hammer and the latest is that even air traffic control is to be privatised. Understandably, this has provoked a revolt from Labour backbenchers but if experience is any indication it is doubtful if they will be able to stop it. At best they can delay it. For all the official claims, public spending under the Labour Government has been far short of promise and expectations - and this despite the impressive surplus which the Government has piled up. It took a huge protest for the Government to come forward with what has been described as a pre-election payout to the voters. The fact is that a truly ``people's government'' would not have waited for street protests to give old pensioners a little more to keep themselves warm in winter. If you are looking for signs of Thatcherite legacy, it is here that they are most evident.

Ironically, while Labour is seen as carrying the Thatcherite ``torch'' the Tories are trying hard to distance themselves from it. Clearly, there is a great deal of ideological confusion with both the ``Left'' and the Right trying to occupy the middle ground in order to appeal to an apolitical generation which even as it wants guaranteed employment, free education, free health and a free roof over its head is also tempted by the seductions of a free market. What is at work are the compulsions of a tightrope walk as Labour tries to reconcile the demands of its traditional constituency with those of the ``me, and myself'' generation. It is an act that all Governments are condemned to perform so long as ideologies remain in coma. A Tory Government is likely to find itself carrying on the Labour ``legacy'' much as Labour is seen to be pursuing Thatcherism. In the end what matters is what keeps them going. Political legacies and labels are incidental to electoral tactics and winning strategies hammered out by backroom boys. No wonder Labour is not protesting attempts to portray it as a torch-bearer of the Thatcherite legacy. Besides, in a season of floating voters it is sensible to play safe. Who knows, someone somewhere might even like the idea of voting for a Thatcherite Labour!

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : Resolving the Narmada conflict
Next     : Rethinking on reforms