Margaret Thatcher is known for many things – declaring war
on trade unions, initiating the mass privatisation of publicly-owned utilities,
selling off council houses, deregulating the City of London, cutting taxes on
the rich, to name a few. But one thing she is not famous for is being on the
Left.
Nonetheless, in 1982, she did something which, in today’s
climate, would be seen as left-wing, even ‘far left’. She suspended arms sales
to Israel. This was in response to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, which was prompted
by the fact that the Palestinian Liberation Organisation had relocated there.
Many civilians were killed and Thatcher’s
government took immediate action. An invitation to Israel to attend the
British Army Equipment Exhibition was withdrawn and arms sales were stopped.
One Foreign Office memo stated, “It would be odd if we were now to conduct
bilateral business with the Israelis as though nothing had happened”.
Contrast this with the current British government’s reaction
to the genocidal Israeli attack on Gaza, which has already killed far more
civilians than the Lebanon War did. In fact, the official number of dead –
30,000 – will be swelled by so far unreported deaths – those dying at home and
missing because they are buried under rubble.
Atrocities definitely happened in the 1982 war, most
famously in refugee camp massacres. But, as far as I’m aware, deaths
from malnutrition did not occur, as they are now. Nor were
starving people deliberately massacred by the Israel Defense Force.
Nonetheless, this time Britain is definitely conducting
business as though nothing had happened. Arms
sales continue, and indeed the “defense relationship” and “growing Israel-UK partnership” is
celebrated by the IDF.
Virtually the only person in the UK Parliament to object to
this state of affairs is a propagator of ‘far left’ ‘socialism’ who has
been cast into out darkness on the patently
ridiculous grounds that he enabled antisemitism to flourish when he was leader
of the Labour party.
I doubt somehow though that Thatcher is turning in her
grave. She regarded her greatest victory
as compelling the Labour party to renounce its mixed economy, social democratic
ideology in favour of her right-wing, corporate friendly, anti-worker economic world-view.
Something Corbyn, all too briefly, reversed.
The Ultimate
Compliment
Present leader Sir Keir Starmer is the perfect compliment to
Thatcher’s legacy. Despite being elected
on a promise of upholding Corbyn’s economic policy, he has jettisoned every
element of it, leaving a husk of Thatcherite nostrums impeccably attuned to the
political and economic establishment which has grown to such dominance in her
wake.
For example, in throwing overboard a pledge to spend £28
billion a year on green energy projects, Starmer and de facto deputy Rachel
Reeves consciously aped the language of the Cameron-Osborne government employed
to justify austerity. They accused the government of “maxing out on the
nation’s credit card”. The same mind-numbing phrase cropped up in Starmer’s
response to the Budget.
Reeves has, in redoubtably conservative fashion, promised to
balance the nation’s books, despite, somewhat hilariously, having
her own Parliamentary credit card taken away in 2015 for over-spending on
expenses. She has also promised not
to reintroduce a cap on bankers’ bonuses abolished by the Conservatives, as
this would mar the charm
offensive with the City of London that she and Starmer have methodically
deployed over the last few years.
A Different Country
The question that should then be asked is how did British
politics get so sclerotically right-wing, especially when, in terms of social
attitudes, the diametrically opposite trend has occurred?
Last autumn, for example, the researchers behind British
Social Attitudes Survey (BSA) proclaimed that Britain had undergone “a
near revolution” in terms of social attitudes over the last four decades:
One clear theme emerges. On many
social issues, such as sexual relations or whether women with young children
should go out to work, there has been a long-run secular change trend towards a
more liberal climate of opinion. In what might be thought a near-revolution in
the country’s cultural outlook and social norms, Britain has increasingly come
to believe that what people do in the bedroom, what kinds of family they live
in, and how they combine family life and paid work should be up to them. The
job of government is to respect and facilitate the decisions they make rather
than try and take those decision[s] for them.
In 1983, half of all respondents said that same sex
relationships were “always wrong” compared to just 9% two years ago. Over three
quarters of people support a woman’s right to have an abortion, compared to
just 37% 40 years ago.
Other seismic changes can be found in attitudes toward premarital
sex, having children outside wedlock, and gender roles in the workplace and the
home. In 1987, for example, 48% agreed that ‘a man’s job is to earn money, a
woman’s job is to look after the home and family’. Now only
9% of people do. Britain “now looks
and feels like a different country from 40 years ago”, the BSA says.
These are all welcome changes but in terms of politics, and
the attitudes underpinning it, Britain doesn’t “feel like a different country
from 40 years ago”. It feels like a worse country.
To go back to the example that introduced this article, in
1982 – when dinosaurian attitudes on social issues held sway – Margaret
Thatcher could, with minimal opposition it seems, suspend arms sales to Israel.
It is inconceivable that such a policy would be enacted today and if, by some
miracle it was, it would be instantly accompanied by howls of
antisemitism.
It may justifiably be pointed out that these changes in
social attitudes did not just happen.
According to journalist Ian
Sinclair, reporting on the BSA survey curiously neglected mentioning the
role of “groups like the Women’s Liberation Movement,
Stonewall, the Gay Liberation Front and Outrage dealing with violence, threats
and abuse in their struggle to win equal rights, changes in the law and shift
public opinion.”
But there is no
shortage of activist groups – on anti-austerity, public
ownership, the rights of disabled claimants, inequality, and corporate taxation for example – trying to shift Britain’s
economic policy and politics marginally to the Left. But in this case, barring
minor victories on things like the municipalisation of bus services, they have
just been banging their heads against a brick wall.
Why is this? Why
did activists, admittedly after years of struggle, succeed in prising the door
open on gender issues, gay rights, and sexual choice but in terms of politics
and economics meet a defiant ‘No Pasaran!” from the elite?
1983 will never die!
I can’t give a
definitive answer but one notable feature of British politics over the past
four decades has been an innate conservatism in the worst sense of the word. Instead
of taking on vested interests, it has opted to protect and preserve them.
In party political
terms, we have one side fixated on a perpetual emulation of Thatcher’s
epoch-changing 1983 victory facing off against the 1997 Reenactment Society. Rather
than changing, as social attitudes obviously have, politics is frozen in aspic,
like some endless rerun of Yes Minister
(which for those who don’t know was a ‘comedic’ representation of the right-wing Public Choice Theory and obsessed with cutting government waste).
In 2008, our necrophile
political system bailed out, with public money, a financial system that had
imploded entirely due to its own inner workings. Not only was this an enormous transfer of wealth from poor to rich, it
also rescued and further entrenched a sector of the economy that feeds off debt
and thus loves conservative economics.
Finance wants
austerity because, as a result, wages are held down and people become even more
susceptible to getting into debt and having to make interest payments. For the
same reason, it has an aversion to trade unions. Finance is also a prime mover
behind the privatisation of public assets, funding the Private Equity groups
that often take over public services, like water or health, thus benefitting
from the rising user fees that people are compelled to pay to gain access to
basic services.
If ‘market
failures’ exist and they aren’t being dealt with, you can bet that for some
people, invariably extremely well-off, these aren’t failures at all but
successes and the source of their wealth.
Hysterical Billionaires
And when the
billionaires who run Britain’s mass media organisations ran into some
turbulence after revelations of phone hacking, the obedient political class was
on hold to limit the fall out. The initial enquiry into unlawful conduct by the
newspapers, led by the judge Brian Leveson, was meant to be followed by a
second part (‘Leveson 2’) that would have looked into “corporate governance
issues”. But this was scrapped by Matt Hancock because of the “significant
progress” that had apparently been made.
As a result, rather
than clipping their wings, moguls like Rupert Murdoch were emboldened. His News
UK launched the right-wing Talk TV station in 2022, emulating the hysterical
Fox News in the US despite laws against broadcasting bias in the UK which
didn’t seem to make much difference. The fact that Talk TV is soon to become a
streaming only service does not denude from its intention to further lock
British politics into a right-wing direction.
Its ‘rival’ GB News
plays a similar role. The co-owner of the channel is hedge fund billionaire Sir
Paul Marshall. In a previous incarnation he funded and edited the 2004 ‘Orange
Book’, a collection of
free market espousing essays by leading Liberal Democrats which set the tone
for their role in the Cameron coalition after 2010.
Marshall, who has been outed for seeming endorsement of far right conspiracy
theories, has previously lamented
the fact that financiers like him ‘made out
like bandits’ as a result of the
government’s decade-long Quantitative Easing programme. But despite this
honesty, he hasn’t been deterred from putting the money to effective use.
If you create a large coterie of billionaires, as our
political system has, you shouldn’t be surprised when they use that enormous
wealth to mould public opinion and protect their interests.
Liberal and progressive opinion in this country has been
profoundly shaped by the Whig theory of history, which is convinced that the
British story exhibits a steady, if slow, progress towards more liberty and
rights. However, the experience of the last 40 years does not bear this out.
Progress and reaction can co-exist, each in their own separate sphere of
influence. Reality, as opposed to the idealised narrative that exists in our
heads, is frequently messy and may point in two contradictory directions at the
same time.