What's to blame for the Broken Society?

UB

As a great man once said: "'No such thing as society', she says. No obligation to the community. No sense of solidarity. No principles of sharing or caring. 'No such thing as society'. No sisterhood, no brotherhood. No neighbourhood. No honouring other people's mothers and fathers. No succouring other people's little children. 'No such thing as society'. No number other than one. No person other than me. No time other than now. No such thing as society, just 'me' and 'now'. That is Margaret Thatcher's society."

Ruddigore Topsider

A good, succinct point, Fraser. But let's call it 'statism' rather than 'socialism', or everyone will think we're fighting yesterday's battles. It would be a great tribute to Bill Buckley if we could see some small-state thinking really penetrate in Britain, to wean us from the infantilising teats of state charity.

Ted Tedford

UB: It rather looks like you are fighting yesterday's battles, not Mr Topsider. Did you just not read the Thatcher quotation? Because, if you did, I fail to see how you can infer Kinnock's blow-hard litany from what she said. Or is your computer equipped to respond with the same comment every time a thread containing the phrase 'no such thing as society' is opened?

William

I take your point, Fraser. I guess what I was reaching to try and say was that a breakdown of community, of civic pride, of belonging, is a big contributor to the social disorder/isolation problem. That people in the social status that you describe would once have belonged to clubs, groups, unions, community organisations and that these bodies are now in terminal decline is not entirely coincidental, in my view. This is all a decline of traditional 'socialist' concepts - and, I repeat, I say that as someone who isn't a socialist. However, it's fair to say that the welfare state is, whether maliciously or otherwise, a major influence in the breakup of traditional society order. I think Ruddigore calls it right when he suggests calling it 'statism' - economic and political control by the State. The concept of 'socialism' had social benefits which have declined. The economic failures you describe need a more accurate description.

john

Fraser, I think your 'quote' may need an ellipsis. Check the Wikipedia version (which may be wrong, of course).

Fraser Nelson

Ruddigore and William, you are both right. "Statism" is more accurate - as socialism can mean so many things (including some laudable aims). It's just that few countries have implemented socialism without massive statism . I'm reading Julian Le Grand's latest book right now ("The Other Invisible Hand") and cant disagree with anything in it so far. Sure he (and Blairites like Milburn) argue that it is socialism, pursued by market means.

Nick Kaplan

UB; did you read the whole quote or just the first sentence? Thatcher did increase personal liberties by lowering the tax burden and reducing the size of the state, but she also put a heavy emphasis on personal responsibility and obligation. Personal responsibility means taking responsibility for you actions and treating others as you yourself would like to be treated. Such values are completely undermined by the Welfare state which is based on the selfish notion that one is entitled to a living at the expense of others whether or not one contributes a single thing to society. It is ideas such as this that make people see themselves as the centre of the world, if it is believed that all people owe you something by virtue of your own existence it is little wonder that people have such little respect for those around them. State dependency undermines both autonomy and personal responsibility and in doing so is fundamentally dangerous for a responsible society. People should be encouraged to take control of their own lives and destinies. This is the message Thatcher promoted and is an idea any sane person should support.

GS

Indeed the phrase "no such thing as society" was so successful that Blair copied it: "we're all middle class now." I disagree with socialism, for as Margaret Thatcher also said, it creeps toward communism. This may be happening, but slowly: A former membre of the British Communist Party was applauded for saying outright silly things on QT a few weeks ago, and more and more ministers (George Galloway in particular) are singing the praises of the communists in Russia and Cuba. I think this shall be interesting to watch

dexey

I thought Mrs. T. a wonderful PM but her policies certainly gave us the me and now society that we have, and Blair and Co. have taken it onward.
Now there is no society just selfishness. We just do not pay enough taxes for the state to look after the young and old and people are generally to selfish to do it themselves.

mike

It started when Maggie made us greedy. Being rich and successful was more important than being nice.I was in my prime when Maggie was in charge, and we just stopped caring about others.Trouble is Blair and his gang did nothing to change what those godforsaken years of Tory government had done. He had his chance but went for fame and fortune, much as Maggie had told us all was the way to go. She was wrong, we were happier then.

Anan

Well it looks like the Labour/Green/Marxists have finally found this website and its ability for user participation and are now carrying out a full frontal assault to try and dominate the discussion, just as they dominate the discussion on most internet forums.

What is to blame for broken society is lack of punishment. If these people knew they would lose their benefits if caught committing anti-social activities, then this gang violence and harrassment of decent people would halve. To end it completely it needs to be made clear that repeated offences = jail.

More importantly, why are these teenagers out on the streets through the night and early into the next morning instead of being at home? Surely they aren't homeless? Don't they have parents?

Nick Kaplan

UB; did you read the whole quote or just the first sentence? Thatcher did increase personal liberties by lowering the tax burden and reducing the size of the state, but she also put a heavy emphasis on personal responsibility and obligation. Personal responsibility means taking responsibility for you actions and treating others as you yourself would like to be treated. Such values are completely undermined by the Welfare state which is based on the selfish notion that one is entitled to a living at the expense of others whether or not one contributes a single thing to society. It is ideas such as this that make people see themselves as the centre of the world, if it is believed that all people owe you something by virtue of your own existence it is little wonder that people have such little respect for those around them. State dependency undermines both autonomy and personal responsibility and in doing so is fundamentally dangerous for a responsible society. People should be encouraged to take control of their own lives and destinies. This is the message Thatcher promoted and is an idea any sane person should support.

EyeSee

UB: well Thatcher paid for ten years of corrosion by TB and GB, so well done you. People for whom truth is another country say that Thatcher brought forth a ME generation. A deliberate perversion. She made it possible for people to achieve, through their own efforts (oh, I see now why some have a problem). Tony Blair however, did usher in the real thing. His ME generation are the ones mugging old ladies, too important to teach (or any other public service) and grab, grab, grab.

Fergus Pickering

I was happy during the 80s. It was a happy time - Britain was a country that meant something, Scargill got his, those bloody Europeans were well handbagged. Would that...

David Storrs-Fox

UB, your post misrepresents the great woman's words in a way that is very common and, often, very much deliberate. You (or your 'great' Welshman) quote the infamous "no such thing as society" bit and ignore the rest of what she says. What is a "living tapestry of men and women" if not a society? Thatcher does not deny society! What she's saying, surely, is that there's no such thing as 'society' in the sense of some abstract entity onto which we can thrust (and blame) our problems - individuals must take responsibility, instead of "cast[ing] their problems on society". Interestingly, some might say that people must take responsibility for themselves, and leave it at that, but she doesn't stop there - "...and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation...". Is that not solidarity? An obligation to the community? Rights make no sense without duties, and people do have social responsibilities. A far cry from 'atomic individualism' and "no person other than me" - it is much more selfish to expect rights while fulfilling no duties. (All quotes not from this page are from the Woman's Own interview - http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=106689)

Nick Kaplan

Mike; the fact that you became greedy during the 80’s can only be blamed on yourself, not on Thatcher. Thatcher’s message was to aspire, not to be greedy, to contribute to society not just take from it, to help each other not just make demands of one another, to make the most of our opportunities, not just punish those who have been more successful. Perhaps most importantly, she always maintained that you must take responsibility for your own actions and choices and not just blame others and society if you make the wrong ones. This message too seems to have been lost on you, the fact that you blame her for your increased greed and selfishness is both pathetic and a typical demonstration of the kind of thing she was against. Is it not time you started to take some responsibility for your own decisions in the 1980’s?

James

There is also the fact that our political class never consider whether policies and practices result in achieving what most people would think of as their primary objectives. Why do we have a criminal justice system? Do the present policies achieve the objectives? Why do we have an education system…Why do we have immigration controls…? Why also is it so difficult to ditch obviously failed theories and policies?

David Storrs-Fox

I should clarify: I meant to defend Thatcher from the misrepresentation of her words, rather than Thatcherism or the record of the Thatcher governments as a whole, although I would largely approve of her words in the Women's Own interview. Whether she put them into action is another matter.

As for welfare and the family, the state should certainly not create a system which favours the break-up of families, but I'd hope most families are held together for non-economic reasons... (and while family is important, the ability to escape particular environments - domestic violence comes to mind - is surely a good thing, so dependence isn't entirely positive).

And why can't benefits withdrawal be more gradual when the recipient begins to earn? For example, JSA could be paid as a given proportion of the difference between the person's wage and a given wage (perhaps as high as the average wage), meaning it is always worth going into a job (welfare wouldn't be such an attractive option) or working for higher pay, but the safety net still exists. Many problems with welfare require only reform, not abandonment of the system.