Regan’s administration in America mirrored that of Thatcher’s in Britain in that the influence of ‘New Right’ economics could be seen in both. Keynesian interventionist economic strategies were being condemned following the unemployment and inflation of the 1970s. Friedrich von Hayek and Milton Friedman thus argued that government interference ‘was invariably the cause of economic problems, rather than the cure’. (Heywood.) Thatcher therefore, by adopting the policies of the free market economists, shifted the emphasis of the Conservative Party away from paternalism and stressed a new strand of conservatism. This new strand was seemingly contradictory because whilst on the one hand it offered minimal intervention from the government, on the other it implied the need for harsh and authoritarian methods for order and discipline in society. This was a new kind of conservatism because, as a basic belief of conservatism is that people are essentially selfish, the introduction of a free-market would allow people to prove themselves and become successful. However, the old was combined with the new as, almost to counter-balance this allowance for individualism, the traditional pessimistic conservative view of human nature was represented in the use of a strong state. Although it has been argued, as Heywood does, that ‘some conservatives are attracted to free-market theories because they promise to secure social order’. Heywood uses the example of the free-market possibly deterring workers from pushing for higher wages because they may be threatened with unemployment. Therefore, the market works hand in hand with the other state forces such as the police in maintaining social stability. In this way, a combination of a free-market and a strong state does not appear so contradictory. At any rate, this hard-hitting attitude of Thatcher’s shifted the party increasingly right-wing. A trend which continued under the leadership of Major. Thatcher initiated privatisation on a grand scale of major industries such as coal and gas, and Major carried it on. Thatcher introduced the ‘Right-to-Buy’ initiative and Major continued with it. In the 1980s, Thatcher brought about the ‘short, sharp shock’ regime in custody youth centres’ and Major, in the 1990s, gave further conservative support to harsh US-style boot camps for young offenders. There was therefore no clear break between Thatcherism and the ensuing leader of the party. Consequently, British conservatism was still well and truly committed to the free-market in conjunction with a strong state.
However, 1997 heralded a disastrous, albeit not wholly unexpectedly dire, general election result for the Conservative Party. By this point it had become blatantly obvious that, as the Conservative Party had shifted increasingly right-wing under the watchful eye of Thatcher, the Labour Party under the intuitive arm of Tony Blair had also moved ideological ground further to the right. In a dramatic break with the Labour Party’s socialist base, it too advocated a free market; lessening the clear blue water between the new government and its opposition. The adaptation of Clause Four highlighted the extent to which the Labour Party had altered from the socialist days of old, and explains why the general election result was a triumph for ‘middle Britain’. Although, Labour’s shift on the political spectrum did not of course alter the basic fact that the Conservative Party still advocated the free market along with a strong state.
So, as the media hyped up the furore surrounding the new young and ‘trendy’ Prime Minister and his introduction of ‘Cool Britannia’, the Conservative Party retired to lick their wounds under the instruction of their new young leader; William Hague. While still remaining distinctly right-wing Hague tried to update and modernise the party, or at least the image of the party. At his first party conference as leader Hague called for a more ‘inclusive’ conservatism which would ‘reach out’ to minorities and destroy the image of the Conservative Party as being ‘stuffy or intolerant’. Parallels could perhaps be drawn between this speech and that of Theresa May, the present Conservative Party Chairwoman, calling for an end to the notion that the party is the ‘nasty party’ at this year’s conference. However, by 2000 Hague appeared to have done a U-turn and he emphasised the ‘traditional, common sense values of conservatism’ instead of ‘the trendy ideals of a liberal elite’. He talked about the country being ‘flooded’ with asylum seekers; mirroring Enoch Powell’s infamous speech made in…..Hague also called for zero-tolerance in areas such as burglary and school discipline; therefore strongly endorsing the use of a strong state. The short flirtation with trying to appeal as an inclusive party for everyone in society seemed to be over. Richard Kelly argues that the change may well have been due to pressure from inside the party, as opposed to Hague himself changing his mind. Therefore, while the leader may have been desperately to make conservatism more attractive, the party itself stuck doggedly to the agenda of a free-market and strong-state set by Thatcher. So as the Conservative Party attempted to reclaim some public support from the Labour Party, their attachment to a free-market and a strong state never dwindled.
Nevertheless, public support kept falling, and following another hugely embarrassing general election Hague resigned. The party and its members though, did little to change the predicament it was in by choosing Iain Duncan-Smith as the next leader; a character as, if not more, right-wing than his predecessor. IDS for example, had been one of the backbenchers who rebelled against the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 under Major’s government. This effectively polarised the party into two factions; the extreme right-wingers who supported IDS and his endorsement of a free-market and strong state, and those such as Kenneth Clarke and Michael Portillo who inclined towards a more ‘One Nation’ form of conservatism.
So, to what extent is British Conservatism still committed to a free market and strong state? It has remained loyal to both over the past few years, while the Labour Party too has shaken off its strong ties with socialism and embraced the concept of having a market dominated by market forces. According to IDS today, he is ‘passionate about improving Britain’s public services’. Amid internal storms within his own party, he is promising to offer better public services and lower tax. And because there is not an obvious ideological break between the government and its opposition, maybe IDS’s promise to lower taxation is the most attractive promise he can make to the electorate. It was obvious that the issue where the two parties are most at odds, i.e. the single currency, did not work as a contentious issue last year for the Conservative Party. It has been claimed by leading members of the commentariat recently that the next general election, widely predicted to be in 2005, will be won on promises made over public services. The news, they say, is crammed full of shock stories about people dying on trolleys in hospital corridors, the police not responding fast enough to 999 calls and now of course, the dispute raging over the fire service. Political psychologists contend that voters become more right-wing when their standard of living is challenged. Possibly this is what IDS is hoping for, focusing, as all good opposition should do, on what a seemingly inexhaustible amount of money the Labour Party are spending on public services without any noticeable improvement. For example, in the past two years Labour has increased spending on the NHS by 20%, whereas the number of treatments carried out has increased by less than 2%. And according to figures published last week, there are now 24000 more administrators working for the NHS than there are beds for patients. And while promising to improve this situation, IDS maintains that the party will keep taxes low. He writes ‘In the 1980s, a Conservative government reformed and improved the performance of the economy keeping taxes low’, and expands about his plans to follow in the footsteps of that government; an optimistic plan possibly when one considers the state of the city at present, and the threat of recession.
Therefore, while the Conservative Party, at the moment, stands up for public services it still supports the free market and a strong state. The latter being most visible in the debates raging, like across many countries in Europe, over the numbers of asylum seekers being allowed into the country, and the arguments batted back and forth in the Commons over rising crime rates. However, politics has over the few years, had to become more ‘user-friendly’. The empathy felt and illustrated by the last general election where 59% of the population turned out highlights the disenfranchisement felt by many people towards politics, and indeed politicians. If the turnout falls, as has been predicted, to 50% in 2005 the situation will have become dramatically worse. This is arguably why spin, and ‘special advisors’ have become such an important part of politics, trying to appeal to the populace. This explains the Conservative Party’s new found feeling for exploiting the potential behind using the public service sector as a weapon with which to fight the stalwart government. The indisputable fact remains though, that while attempting toning down their image as extreme right-wingers, the Conservative Party remains as committed as ever to a free market and a strong state. All they need now is a few competent politicians able to preach their case for them.
