On the other hand, Socialists stress on the changing relationship between different classes in society, claiming that by examining the past, they are able to understand how capitalism has been able to survive and to suggest ways in which a more just and fairer society, based on rational principle, can be established. Whereas Conservatives emphasises the importance of the family and the nation as a basic unit, the key unit in Socialism is the class. At the heart of Socialism is the belief that people should join together and work collectively. Moreover, Socialists aim to transform society, for example, to redistribute the wealth in society. However, this can only be done by gaining control of the state, that is, win the office.
Whilst it is true that ideologies are often heavily associated with a particular party, the relationship is not entirely straightforward, political parties are often influenced by more than one ideology. Key Liberal ideas, for example, have influenced both the Conservative Party and Labour Party.
The post-war Labour government was responsible for setting up the welfare state; it was designed to provide a safety net for people ‘from the cradle to the grave’. And the foundations of the welfare state had been laid by 1951. Central to the development of it was the economic approach devised by the economist J.M. Keynes (1883-1946). He proposed ‘demand management’ in a mixed economy to ensure full employment. But these would all become nothing if the Conservative government which took office in 1951 had immediately begun to dismantle them. The Conservative though chose not to do so. The reason for that was described by Whiteley and his colleagues (1994) that ‘One nation Conservatism was revived and revitalised by the post-war election defeat of the Conservatives and the perception arising from that defeat that the party needed to modernise itself… Progressives accept and support the welfare state and Keynesian methods of macro-economic management… Progressivism stresses the importance of a social safety net to deal with poverty in addition to a limited redistribution of income and wealth. It espouses a paternalistic commitment to caring for all members of the community and favours government intervention in the economy to regulate markets.’ (Whiteley et al. 1994, p.131) This post-war consensus – the welfare state had been accepted by the public at large and by every government elected between 1945 and 1979 (except Heath’s in 1970), whether Labour or Conservative, pledged to maintain and improve its main institutions and practices.
However, this consensus did not last for long; cracks began to appear from 1968 onwards in the face of economic and political developments which appeared to show that stability and prosperity could not be guaranteed by the policies adopted during the years of consensus. 1974 was a turning point. First, Margaret Thatcher became Conservative Leader following the party’s defeat in the October 1974 election and the adoption of a New Right social market strategy. And second, the Labour government failed to solve the economic problems which arose in 1974-79. This provided a suitable environment for attacking the post-war consensus.
During the 1970s, the political movement which became known as the ‘New Right’ emerged in Britain, and it was from this movement that Margaret Thatcher drew her inspiration. The origins of the New Right can be traced to three main sources. Firstly is the work of Milton Friedman and Frederick Hayek. The second major source was come from Enoch Powell. And finally is the ideas generated by various think tanks. Even though the term has aroused controversy, it is unified in its attack on the post-war consensus.
‘Thatcherism’ can be defined as an attempt to establish a new political and ideological framework based on a mixture of liberal and authoritarian New Right ideas. There are seven key elements in Thatcherism: a new way of managing the economy; privatisation; curbing the unions; centralisation; authoritarianism; a new style of government and Victorian values. During the 1980s, the Thatcher governments set out to alter fundamentally the political culture. The dominant political culture of the 1970s was regarded as a reason for Britain’s poor economic performance and the Thatcher governments aimed to create a new culture of self-reliance, enterprise and market values. In terms of meeting these objectives, the Thatcher governments had some success. For instance, they succeeded in lowering inflation and income tax and restructuring local government. It is also clear, however, that those people with above average incomes gained, whilst other unemployed or on low incomes did not.
Throughout the Thatcher years there was a significant opposition to the policies that the government pursued. Although the Conservatives under Margaret Thatcher won three general elections in a row, they never gained more than the 43.9% of the vote. This shows that there were more opponents of Thatcher and her policies than there were supporters. Opponents were come from different parts of the society. For example, Conservative official opposition – Labour Party, the opposition within the Conservative Party and other opponents in trade union, pressure group and local government. In addition to these is the urban unrest in 1981 and 1985.
Margaret Thatcher’s position was weakened by five factors – Britain’s economic position in 1990, the poll tax, Conservative splits over Europe, the resignation of Cabinet ministers and a series of poor election results for the Conservatives. Followed by Michael Heseltine’s leadership bid, Thatcher decided to resign in 1990, at the same time John Major elevated and become Conservative Leader and Prime Minister. The policies which emerged in Major’s first two years as Prime Minister demonstrated both a degree of change and considerable continuity, especially in terms of economic goals. However, between 1992 and 1997, the problems which besieged the Major government came thick and fast. First, loss of a reputation for economic competence; second, the necessity to go back on a pledge not to raise taxes; third, damaging splits over Europe; forth, the sleaze and finally a revitalised Labour Party.
The repositioning of the Labour Party following Tony Blair’s election as Party Leader in 1994 meant that, firstly adopting economic policies with a broader appeal and fewer spending commitments, secondly making internal Labour Party reforms, followed by building a positive image for the Party Leader, and targeting new policies at ‘Middle England’, then wooing the press, minimising the impact of the Boundary Commission, and finally attempting to win the votes of women.
Whilst nobody could deny that the result of the 1997 general election was a decisive victory for Labour, the number of seats won by Labour was inflated by the way in which the electoral system works. Also, turnout was the lowest in a general election since 1935. There are a number of factors, explain Labour’s huge Commons majority. The long-term factors are the problems faced by the Conservative government and the repositioning of Labour. By the time the general election was called, the Conservative Party appeared tired, divided and sleazy whilst the Labour Party appeared fresh, united and dynamic. Reviewing the whole 18 years of Conservative rule, it can be claimed that the period had failed to produce the revolution in the nation’s political attitudes that the Thatcherites had hoped for, so there was a mood that it was ‘time for a change’. Although, long-term factors produced the climate in which the election was fought, a number of short-term factors had an important bearing on the result, such as electoral geography, Labour’s campaign tactics, tactical voting, party membership and the campaign.
To make-up of Tony Blair’s first government was determined both by the Labour Party constitution and by Blair’s own political preferences and considerations. Significantly, there were few places for ‘Old’ Labour MPs. Political commentators argued that the reshuffle in July 1998 was designed to strengthen Tony Blair’s own position, as it affected 52 ministers.
In total, 52 separate pieces of legislation were passed during the first parliamentary session and 22 Bills were proposed for the second. Labour’s approach in government shows signs of continuity with the previous administration, like in the approach to economic management, and innovation such as constitutional reform.
Once the Labour Party had won power, talk of ‘New Labour’ gave way to discussion of a ‘Third Way’. The Third Way was a label designed to describe that was distinctive about the Labour government’s approach. It is the idea of carving a middle path between Thatcherism on the right and democratic socialism on the left, which is both radical and centrist at the same time. It is designed to appeal to former Conservative voters and to Liberal Democrats as much as to Labour voters, it has a dynamic agenda for change and aim to move ahead with the support of the mass of the people. However, this idea has produced a great deal of debate. Some people argue that it is merely the Thatcherite agenda dressed up differently, while others argue that it is a new approach – the ‘Third Way’. Although Third Way ideology has failed to infiltrate many areas of policy, it has nevertheless helped to shape the broad, overall direction of New Labour’s strategy.
To sum up, it is clearly that political parties are often influenced by more than one key ideology. It is changing over the time, and different ideologies can lead parties making fundamentally different policies.
Bibliography
- Grant, M, et al (2002), British Politics in Focus, Second Edition, Causeway Press, Lancs.
- Andrew Heywood (1992), Political Ideologies: An Introduction, Macmillan Press, London.
- Richard Kelly (1997), ‘British Political Parties: Developments Since 1992’ in Developments in Politics Vol. 8, Causeway Press.
- Peter Kerr, et al (2003), ‘Shall I Compare Thee…? Evaluating the Politics of New Labour’ in Developments in Politics Vol. 14, Causeway Press.
- “Whither Conservatism” by Leach, R in Talking Politics Vol. 15, No. 2, Jan 2003.
- “Conservatives under Hague” by Kelly, R in Talking Politics Vol. 13, No. 2, Jan 2001.
-
“From Old Labour to 3rd Way” by Leach, R in Talking Politics Vol. 14, No. 2, Jan 2002.
- “Declining Party Ideology” by Mc Naughton in Talking Politics Vol. 16, No. 1, Sep 2003.