INTRODUCTION
John Major as a successor to Margaret Thatcher was always going to find life difficult. He says himself he rejected any talk of his creating 'Majorism' as Margaret created 'Thatcherism', claiming instead that "The Conservative Party does not belong to any one individual" . His priorities (at least initially) as he saw them were clear; inflation, inflation, inflation. Further to that, he aimed to reduce unemployment, although not through artificial job creation, but by preserving a climate of low inflation in which growth would be encouraged. He aimed to privatise that which was feasible and had not already been done.
But the climate in which John Major became Prime Minister was markedly different from that of 1979 and so, by necessity, the leadership and policy-making styles of Thatcher and Major were different. Significant in his priorities were consolidation and continuity; it was for this reason, primarily, he was elected by the Conservatives; and for this reason it is difficult to see a Major agenda as distinct from Thatcher. Nevertheless there were some interesting differences between the two leaders which I shall attempt to draw here, emphasising the areas in which Major departs from Thatcherism; particularly in his attitude towards EMU and industrial policy.
During this essay I shall look first broadly at monetary and fiscal policy and subsequently examine the position within and attitudes towards Europe, an issue which, by its very nature, must have a profound effect on the direction of a nation's macroeconomic policy. Their styles of leadership of course diverge greatly which is a significant factor in the differing culture of the times. Finally I shall examine the how the attitudes of the two Prime Ministers differed towards industrial policy. I shall attempt to demonstrate that macroeconomic policy remained largely consistent through over the Conservative time in office, however Major took much greater interest in the microeconomic policy which had been largely ignored under Thatcher.
MACROECONOMIC POLICY
The Thatcher Legacy
Where Thatcher had come in on a ticket of revolutionary policy, the general feeling when Major assumed office in 1990 was that, whilst the voters had taken as much as perhaps they could in terms of state retrenchment, there was no strong call for a radical new agenda. To this end, Major's leade...
... middle of paper ...
...lowing his former leader. Rather, it may be that, as asserted by Dennis Kavanagh, Major saw the Conservative Party as one of continuity not revolution (this would explain both his broad adoption of her policies and his less strident pursuit of them). Where the goals of the 1980s were necessarily economic, Major has taken them and tilted them toward the social; Thatcherism was defined by what it fought against; 'it is less clear what the dragons are in the 1990s' .
BIBLIOGRAPHY
· Chrystal and Price, Controversies in Macroeconomics, ch.11, (1994)
· Crafts, N. F. R., 'Industry', from Kavanagh and Seldon, The Major Effect, (1994)
· Hutton, W., The State We're In, (1996)
· Jay, P., 'The Economy', from Kavanagh and Seldon, The Major Effect, (1994)
· Kavanagh, D., 'A Major Agenda?', from Kavanagh and Seldon, The Major Effect, (1994)
· Major, J., John Major, The Autobiography, (1999)
· Minford, P., 'How Good a Chancellor is Kenneth Clarke?', from Economic Review, 12(3), (1995)
· Oliver, M., 'The Conservative years: A Revolution in Economic Policy?', from Economic Review, 14(4), (1997)
· Wilks, S., 'Economic Policy', from Dunleavy et al, Developments in British Politics Vol. 4, (1993)
It must be considered when viewing the achievements of Labour that in 1924, the Labour government was not in a position to push ahead with radical policies, as a minority in the house of commons a Conservative vote and abstinence of a liberal support would have brought the government down. A heavy reliance on the liberals existed in the first labour government which some argue restricted them heavily, policies such as nationalisation and disarmament had no chance of being implemented. Also due to its reliance on the Liberals its relationship with trade unions was damaged as they felt they were not being represented as well as promised. To labour this was a large problem as trade unions provided most of their funds, however to be too sympathetic to the unions would make it difficult to project an image of their party as genuinely national. Labour theorised that a gradual series of changes would be more beneficial to their aims, and using their rise to power in 24 as foundation stone to prove their capability in government, their socialist views were still present, however were a realistic take on Labours ability to bring change to Britain, which was at this point vastly limited.
In conclusion, before David Cameron came into power, the Conservatives were in the right side of politics were Thatcher left them. He brought the party closer to the centre. He changed people’s perception about the Conservative party because he changes a lot of things leaving few things unchanged. David Cameron definitely moved the party to the centre of politics.
Alcock, P. Erskine, A. and May, M (1998) The Student’s Companion to Social Policy, 2nd Edition, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing
Overall, it is evident that Heath had implemented policies and retaliated on impulse which results in problems including the ‘U-turns’ and problems based upon the economy – especially the continuity of the sterling crisis which demonstrates that conservative nor labour were able to deal with the devaluation of the pound effectively. Therefore, Heath’s government had more failures than successes because the economy was still an issue and with Wilson being able to come back to power so quickly after Heath- it demonstrates that Heath’s government had won unexpectedly while Wilson would work on coming back to gain more support which he did in the February 1974 election.
The key policy that they pushed in their election campaign was Tariff Reform, an issue that divided the party, making them appear weaker to voters. Arthur Balfour allowed Joseph Chamberlain to go ahead with the push, but they miscalculated public opinion; it was not what the public wanted. The population did not see the benefits of Tariff Reform from the bigger picture like Chamberlain did, protecting the domestic market; rather they saw it as a bread and butter issue, with taxes directly affecting their costs of living, which the working class feared may hit them badly.
To determine where the ideas behind the New Deal fit this paper will examine core areas within the new deal ranging from American Politics to economic roles of the New Deal including `Big Government' and `Big Labour'. It will also examine the New Deal's ideas concerning the environment, states, agriculture and social welfare.
Reagan became president when the country was experiencing economic troubles; mainly inflation was at 13 percent and the unemployment rate climbing. Reagan developed a relief act and policies that became known as Reaganomics. Marc Cornman states “that there was no positive to the policies unless you were rich.” Interesting perspective, meaning that the policies covered lowering income and capital gains taxes, encouraging businesses to do business in the United States hoping to boost spending and in turn the economy. Mr. Cornman remembers more negatives, “Unemployment and the first recession, he raised taxes and eliminated deductions but continued to lower taxes for the wealthy.” He also recollects that President Reagan fired thousands of air traffic controllers for going on strike and that Reagan implied that unions were no longer needed this harming the economy even more. He feels ...
To sum briefly, Margret Thatcher did many positive things to the British country, as well as bad things. On the one hand, she fought for her country, regardless of how much it would cost the country, for instance taking back the Falkland Islands. On the other hand, she changed people’s view on women and she was part of making Britain what it is today. However, she was also responsible for high unemployment, poverty and a divide in the social
The Thatcherism ideology was part of the establishment of privatisation, cutting off the taxes and reducing public expenditure in health and care services in order to improve Britain’s economy, as a consequence more than 50 identities were privatised by
Bullock, Alan, and Maurice Shock, eds. The Liberal Tradition: From Fox to Keynes. Clarendon Press, 1967.
...y more appealing by removing themselves from the criticisms that both the conservatives and liberals had and making labour appear as a new, different way in which politics should by heading. This may also be true by appearing to be the most progressive party. By promoting themselves a party of progress and change, labour would have appealed to the electorate who were uninterested in the same promises by traditional parties and convince more non voters to vote for a party that promotes radical and progressive changes. It is argued by the majority of critics that ‘new’ labour wasn’t as especially new as they made themselves seem, instead they took from a variety of past and present governments different ideals, goals and politics and combining them all to make a ‘new’ progressive party that would appeal to the masses that wanted a new radical change in politics.
... lack of a national vote tarnished their agenda throughout resulting in internal conflict. However they were consistently confronted with the dominance of the Government, Thatcher had at her disposal the police force whose power during the crisis resembled that of an army; furthermore the media became a government tool for the manipulation and disrepute of the NUM allowing public opinion to be shaped in favour of the government. It was a defining moment in British industrial relations, and the strikes defeat significantly weakened the British trade union movement. It was also seen as a major political victory for Margaret Thatcher and the conservative party, as the miners were defeated allowing Thatcher’s government to consolidate its fiscally conservative programme. Consequently the political power of the NUM and of most British trade unions was severely reduced.
I will be attempting to evaluate and analyse the term of Thatcherism'. I will raise issues and introduce her consensus and strategies as a PM. To what extent or degree has the Thatcher government dominated British politics.
The essay explores the life, times and legacy of Margaret Thatcher, the most outstanding female in the 20th century. The controlling idea is that she was a woman with great ambition, endeavour and determination to overcome difficulties of reaching her dream. Her ambition gained her trust from others gradually and made her the first female Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. She struck to sweep away a great prejudice against the mere idea of having a woman as an important political member . As a Prime Minister, she determinedly made three notable achievements to Britain. She won admiration from all over the world. Thus, she should be remembered to all.
The disparities between the two views of the economy lead to very different policies that have produced contradictory results. The Keynesian theory presents the rational of structuralism as the basis of economic decisions and provides support for government involvement to maintain high levels of employment. The argument runs that people make decisions based on their environments and when investment falls due to structural change, the economy suffers from a recession. The government must act against this movement and increase the level of employment by fiscal injections and training of the labour force. In fact, the government should itself increase hiring in crown corporations. In contrast the Neoliberal theory attributes the self-interest of individuals as the determinant of the level of employment.