Just over 32 years since she left office and almost a decade after her death Margaret Thatcher continues to dominate British politics. Liz Truss’s successful campaign in last year’s Conservative leadership election consisted largely of cosplaying a cartoon version of the former Prime Minister – to the extent of copying various famous photo opportunities and outfits. The rapid collapse of her administration, following a series of decisions the real Thatcher would never have taken, was as perfect an example of “second time as farce” as you could wish for.
It’s interesting, I think the fundamental problem of Thatcherism came via the message itself. Because it was telling people that accruing unearned wealth, via housing windfalls or otherwise, was a result of thrift and hard work, once they did it they became entitled because they had internalised those beliefs.
This is, I think, a central point which underlines Ben Ansell’s recent (excellent) work about wealth taxes. It also comes up when you talk about pensions, where people think they paid into some pension pot and they’re just taking out what they put in when that’s not how the state system works.
People of my generation (millennials) don’t believe this because they view the system as a sham. There is no amount of thrift and hard work that can help you buy a house when prices are rising much faster than your earnings are. Even people who have recently bought realise this because their own experience is likely one of getting where they got to despite the system, not because of it (E.g. parental help or a tax break).
My generation also experienced the backwash of ideologies like Thatcherism, which has been all this garbage about self-improvement or manifesting. But that turns out to be a sham too. Changing your sleep schedule or simply taking a positive attitude won’t stop your rent from increasing, help you pay your bills, or get you a big pay rise. Even when you do everything ‘right’, nothing works and then what you hear from politicians and many older people is that it’s somehow your fault.
Excellent article Sam. Well thought through analysis. As a Boomer who over time has benefited massively from Thatcher’s reforms - whilst hating the further inequalities that emerged, I mix with many people in my age group who feel as strongly as Millennials about this. We think the younger generation have been robbed to our advantage. I don’t think the Conservatives have a lot to lose if they seriously act on your advice because so many of us are deeply entrenched in our political views at our age. There are many I talk to who would only ever vote conservative whatever happens and still, after all the scandals of the last years and the Brexit disaster continue to insist ‘they’re still better than the other lot’ or ‘all politicians are the same’. Whilst others, a much smaller group in my experience, would never vote conservative anyway. I would be interested to know how many genuine floating voters there are amongst the over 65s. Not many I suspect. So a shift in policy may cause less damage than expected.
Fascinating post. I do think the "cosplaying Thatcherism" goes wider than just Truss in the party eg I think it explains what has been puzzling you about the Government's seemingly inexplicable refusal to negotiate with public sector unions. It's cosplaying Thatcher - she "confronted unions", so we must "confront unions". The fact that the circumstances are totally different and it's not really "confrontation" in any meaningful sense is not the point: with no coherent ideology or strategy, all that remains is cosplay.
“How disappointed Margaret would be that her vigorous voters have decided to live the quiet life in their fully owned bungalow rather than continue working for the good of the nation.”
This points back to members of the landed gentry who never participated in agricultural production - and certainly did not live within sight of their own warehouses in Cheapside!
My wife showed me lovely Lewis Baston quoting the “Thatcher sought to make a country fit for people like her father, but actually made a country only fit for people like her son.” line. For the record, I’m pretty sure that’s one of mine.
Totally agree with this. I’m a boomer who has worked hard, also made money out of property and am now retired early. My kids will not be able to do this and I do see entitlement among my group of boomer friends- not all, but there’s definitely a NIMBY crew. Time for a change to give our kids their fair share
Feb 1, 2023·edited Feb 1, 2023Liked by Sam Freedman
My father was a Visiting Professor at the University of Nottingham in 1977-78 so I got to experience the collapse of Labour firsthand. The British Leyland car that made the junk General Motors was making at the time look good by comparison. The rolling power outages due to striking unions. The various other strikes. I thought at the time, and still think today, that excessive union power was wrecking the UK economy.
But SOME worker power is essential to prevent exploitation. SOME regulations are needed to make sure markets don't ignore externalities.
And invoking a past icon as a means of ending debate is rarely good for any organization.
Hi Sam, Thank you - this is far and away the best and most concise assessment I've yet read on why long-term Conservative policy intentions are self-defeating. I'm fairly sure Tony Benn made a diary comment around 1974/5, to the effect that the way we organise our societies changes roughly every 35-40 years, and that he felt another such change was coming (cf, Callaghan's famous comments, then the 1979 GE). Since 2008, many commentators and analysts have predicted that the UK system would have to change. What I think no one predicted was the exact extent to which the Conservatives would double down on protecting a single defined group of economic beneficiaries (their over 65 voter base) at the obvious and undisguised expense of so many other groups in society. Has there ever been a comparable example of a party/movement pushing itself so effectively into electoral oblivion? I don't think the inter-war collapse of the Liberal Party really compares to this?
A really interesting analysis and I think bang-on-the-money. The generational divide is incredible: as a 'geriatric millennial' I'm amazed at how I know perhaps only a handful of Tories, despite living/working in circles that would traditionally have been true blue. Financial services workers, homeowners, privately educated, six-figure salaries - these people would normally be considered as slam-dunk Conservative voters and yet none are.
The question I have is, who do you think in the Parliamentary party might act on this analysis? Seems a few MPs will admit the existential threat when talking to journalists on background, but I just can't see who'll be leading the charge in opposition. Indeed, looking at the bank benches yields more Lee Andersons than Tony Blair types and the few that see the iceberg on the horizon seem to be stepping down. So whilst I think the analysis and advice above is sound for the Tories, do we think there's any prospect of them acting on it? Or will it take several election losses?
Sam, for somebody who normally bases his arguments on facts rather than emotion, this statement struck me as uncharacteristic of your style. About your description of Boomers, 'They have become spectacularly entitled - but not my dad.' How would you summarise Generation X, Y and Z? How about dripping with useless degrees and grievance - but not my son and daughter? Generational stereotypes really don't get us much further forward, do they.
Let's take it as read that there will be a Labour Government at the next election. I would much prefer to see you using your considerable intelligence and experience to detail what tangible difference it would make to the mega issues facing the UK and in what timescale.
Thanks for this really interesting piece. I think there is a more profound element to the shadow of Thatcherism. I agree that the effect on wealth inequality has been staggering and generally contributes to a lot of the disenfranchisement of young people at the moment, as well as the huge number of problems caused by this intergenerational inequality that are coming at us in the near future. It is certainly true that the effect of Thatcherism has been worsened by an inability to replace sold off housing stock because the beneficiaries of Thatcherism have, after realising the benefits, pulled up the ladder for the generations that have followed. This is obviously exacerbated by the population demographics that are causing the pension crisis that we have at the moment. However, on a deeper level, I think a lot of the current dysfunction of our state (the managerialism, declinism, and the general failure of government) stems from the Thatcherist consensus. Since Thatcher left, the state has been spending and taxing at nigh on record peacetime levels (certainly far higher than under Thatcher). However, the Thatcher/Reaganist doctrine of limited government has become a deeply engrained part of the government psyche. So whilst the government is doing more than it has done for a long time, the philosophy of limited government remains, which, I think, has filtered into a lack of ambition in government projects over the past 50 years. Not enough nuclear investment, not enough rail investment, a grid that is overused, no government housebuilding and plenty of government house blocking. Compared to the French, who have a very different philosophy on the virtues of government, it feels like we have not been ambitious enough in setting up a country that continues to work; whether that's a reliance on foreign energy or high house prices. This legacy is also seen in the PE ownership of so much of the care sector and private sector involvement (though some of it is good) in public sector provision. This might work if you are going to genuinely have a small state but it makes our government so much less dynamic and effective because there is a reticence in government to interfere. If we are going to have such a large state, we might as well make use of it by properly investing in infrastructure, pushing government to override local planning complaints and to genuinely reform key parts of the state such as the pension system, the tax system and investment. Until we shake the burden of Thatcherism, we will be condemned to continuing this weird path of big state spending and tax with small state ambition which is basically the managerialism that we see today.
"Beyond Tory politics the changes Thatcher introduced have become part of a consensus that is only now starting to come under sustained challenge, as economic stagnation and social decay create a sense of perma-crisis."
May I ask what if any of Thatcher's changes beyond union regulation exist today and were not undone by New Labour followed by the Cameron then May/Johnson Conservatives (in reality New Labour branded differently)? Now we have a "Conservative" government substantially to the left of Tony Blair.
There's not that much left to place under 'sustained challenge' imho. We are a completely different country than the UK Thatcher left some 33 years ago.
Thatcher merely exists today as a cipher, a strawman onto which everyone can project either the evils of capitalism and failures of conservatism; or the abject failure adopt low-tax supply side reforms and drive growth through entrepreneurship and wealth creation. You take your choice.
Another interesting thought for me in this is Generation Z. They seem a much ‘quieter’ group politically in some ways. More thoughtful and harder working when in school according to surveys. But arguably they have and will suffer even more than recent previous generations from the inequalities, the inability to own their own homes, the pandemic during the period when they could have expected to be most socially active etc. How are their politics emerging?
I really enjoy your newsletter- thanks for introducing me to the world of Substack too.
Regarding the opinion polls and the next election, when will we have enough information to get an idea of the effect of voters having to show ID? After the May local elections?
It’s interesting, I think the fundamental problem of Thatcherism came via the message itself. Because it was telling people that accruing unearned wealth, via housing windfalls or otherwise, was a result of thrift and hard work, once they did it they became entitled because they had internalised those beliefs.
This is, I think, a central point which underlines Ben Ansell’s recent (excellent) work about wealth taxes. It also comes up when you talk about pensions, where people think they paid into some pension pot and they’re just taking out what they put in when that’s not how the state system works.
People of my generation (millennials) don’t believe this because they view the system as a sham. There is no amount of thrift and hard work that can help you buy a house when prices are rising much faster than your earnings are. Even people who have recently bought realise this because their own experience is likely one of getting where they got to despite the system, not because of it (E.g. parental help or a tax break).
My generation also experienced the backwash of ideologies like Thatcherism, which has been all this garbage about self-improvement or manifesting. But that turns out to be a sham too. Changing your sleep schedule or simply taking a positive attitude won’t stop your rent from increasing, help you pay your bills, or get you a big pay rise. Even when you do everything ‘right’, nothing works and then what you hear from politicians and many older people is that it’s somehow your fault.
Excellent article Sam. Well thought through analysis. As a Boomer who over time has benefited massively from Thatcher’s reforms - whilst hating the further inequalities that emerged, I mix with many people in my age group who feel as strongly as Millennials about this. We think the younger generation have been robbed to our advantage. I don’t think the Conservatives have a lot to lose if they seriously act on your advice because so many of us are deeply entrenched in our political views at our age. There are many I talk to who would only ever vote conservative whatever happens and still, after all the scandals of the last years and the Brexit disaster continue to insist ‘they’re still better than the other lot’ or ‘all politicians are the same’. Whilst others, a much smaller group in my experience, would never vote conservative anyway. I would be interested to know how many genuine floating voters there are amongst the over 65s. Not many I suspect. So a shift in policy may cause less damage than expected.
Fascinating post. I do think the "cosplaying Thatcherism" goes wider than just Truss in the party eg I think it explains what has been puzzling you about the Government's seemingly inexplicable refusal to negotiate with public sector unions. It's cosplaying Thatcher - she "confronted unions", so we must "confront unions". The fact that the circumstances are totally different and it's not really "confrontation" in any meaningful sense is not the point: with no coherent ideology or strategy, all that remains is cosplay.
“How disappointed Margaret would be that her vigorous voters have decided to live the quiet life in their fully owned bungalow rather than continue working for the good of the nation.”
This points back to members of the landed gentry who never participated in agricultural production - and certainly did not live within sight of their own warehouses in Cheapside!
My wife showed me lovely Lewis Baston quoting the “Thatcher sought to make a country fit for people like her father, but actually made a country only fit for people like her son.” line. For the record, I’m pretty sure that’s one of mine.
Totally agree with this. I’m a boomer who has worked hard, also made money out of property and am now retired early. My kids will not be able to do this and I do see entitlement among my group of boomer friends- not all, but there’s definitely a NIMBY crew. Time for a change to give our kids their fair share
My father was a Visiting Professor at the University of Nottingham in 1977-78 so I got to experience the collapse of Labour firsthand. The British Leyland car that made the junk General Motors was making at the time look good by comparison. The rolling power outages due to striking unions. The various other strikes. I thought at the time, and still think today, that excessive union power was wrecking the UK economy.
But SOME worker power is essential to prevent exploitation. SOME regulations are needed to make sure markets don't ignore externalities.
And invoking a past icon as a means of ending debate is rarely good for any organization.
Hi Sam, Thank you - this is far and away the best and most concise assessment I've yet read on why long-term Conservative policy intentions are self-defeating. I'm fairly sure Tony Benn made a diary comment around 1974/5, to the effect that the way we organise our societies changes roughly every 35-40 years, and that he felt another such change was coming (cf, Callaghan's famous comments, then the 1979 GE). Since 2008, many commentators and analysts have predicted that the UK system would have to change. What I think no one predicted was the exact extent to which the Conservatives would double down on protecting a single defined group of economic beneficiaries (their over 65 voter base) at the obvious and undisguised expense of so many other groups in society. Has there ever been a comparable example of a party/movement pushing itself so effectively into electoral oblivion? I don't think the inter-war collapse of the Liberal Party really compares to this?
A really interesting analysis and I think bang-on-the-money. The generational divide is incredible: as a 'geriatric millennial' I'm amazed at how I know perhaps only a handful of Tories, despite living/working in circles that would traditionally have been true blue. Financial services workers, homeowners, privately educated, six-figure salaries - these people would normally be considered as slam-dunk Conservative voters and yet none are.
The question I have is, who do you think in the Parliamentary party might act on this analysis? Seems a few MPs will admit the existential threat when talking to journalists on background, but I just can't see who'll be leading the charge in opposition. Indeed, looking at the bank benches yields more Lee Andersons than Tony Blair types and the few that see the iceberg on the horizon seem to be stepping down. So whilst I think the analysis and advice above is sound for the Tories, do we think there's any prospect of them acting on it? Or will it take several election losses?
Sam, for somebody who normally bases his arguments on facts rather than emotion, this statement struck me as uncharacteristic of your style. About your description of Boomers, 'They have become spectacularly entitled - but not my dad.' How would you summarise Generation X, Y and Z? How about dripping with useless degrees and grievance - but not my son and daughter? Generational stereotypes really don't get us much further forward, do they.
Let's take it as read that there will be a Labour Government at the next election. I would much prefer to see you using your considerable intelligence and experience to detail what tangible difference it would make to the mega issues facing the UK and in what timescale.
Thanks for this really interesting piece. I think there is a more profound element to the shadow of Thatcherism. I agree that the effect on wealth inequality has been staggering and generally contributes to a lot of the disenfranchisement of young people at the moment, as well as the huge number of problems caused by this intergenerational inequality that are coming at us in the near future. It is certainly true that the effect of Thatcherism has been worsened by an inability to replace sold off housing stock because the beneficiaries of Thatcherism have, after realising the benefits, pulled up the ladder for the generations that have followed. This is obviously exacerbated by the population demographics that are causing the pension crisis that we have at the moment. However, on a deeper level, I think a lot of the current dysfunction of our state (the managerialism, declinism, and the general failure of government) stems from the Thatcherist consensus. Since Thatcher left, the state has been spending and taxing at nigh on record peacetime levels (certainly far higher than under Thatcher). However, the Thatcher/Reaganist doctrine of limited government has become a deeply engrained part of the government psyche. So whilst the government is doing more than it has done for a long time, the philosophy of limited government remains, which, I think, has filtered into a lack of ambition in government projects over the past 50 years. Not enough nuclear investment, not enough rail investment, a grid that is overused, no government housebuilding and plenty of government house blocking. Compared to the French, who have a very different philosophy on the virtues of government, it feels like we have not been ambitious enough in setting up a country that continues to work; whether that's a reliance on foreign energy or high house prices. This legacy is also seen in the PE ownership of so much of the care sector and private sector involvement (though some of it is good) in public sector provision. This might work if you are going to genuinely have a small state but it makes our government so much less dynamic and effective because there is a reticence in government to interfere. If we are going to have such a large state, we might as well make use of it by properly investing in infrastructure, pushing government to override local planning complaints and to genuinely reform key parts of the state such as the pension system, the tax system and investment. Until we shake the burden of Thatcherism, we will be condemned to continuing this weird path of big state spending and tax with small state ambition which is basically the managerialism that we see today.
"Beyond Tory politics the changes Thatcher introduced have become part of a consensus that is only now starting to come under sustained challenge, as economic stagnation and social decay create a sense of perma-crisis."
May I ask what if any of Thatcher's changes beyond union regulation exist today and were not undone by New Labour followed by the Cameron then May/Johnson Conservatives (in reality New Labour branded differently)? Now we have a "Conservative" government substantially to the left of Tony Blair.
There's not that much left to place under 'sustained challenge' imho. We are a completely different country than the UK Thatcher left some 33 years ago.
Thatcher merely exists today as a cipher, a strawman onto which everyone can project either the evils of capitalism and failures of conservatism; or the abject failure adopt low-tax supply side reforms and drive growth through entrepreneurship and wealth creation. You take your choice.
At least Ayn Rand isn't quite as popular in the UK as she is among the US right wing...
Another interesting thought for me in this is Generation Z. They seem a much ‘quieter’ group politically in some ways. More thoughtful and harder working when in school according to surveys. But arguably they have and will suffer even more than recent previous generations from the inequalities, the inability to own their own homes, the pandemic during the period when they could have expected to be most socially active etc. How are their politics emerging?
Hi Sam
I really enjoy your newsletter- thanks for introducing me to the world of Substack too.
Regarding the opinion polls and the next election, when will we have enough information to get an idea of the effect of voters having to show ID? After the May local elections?
Regards
Andrew
During Margaret Thatcher’s years, the bank rate averaged 11.46%.
During the Blair Brown years, it averaged 4.7%.
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/boeapps/database/Bank-Rate.asp