Blair goes, Thatcherism lives on

23 June 2007

In the last days of Blair’s premiership, Simon Jenkins is struck by the stunning resilience of Thatcherite doctrine: in time, New Labour will be seen as nothing but a change of crew

There is now no meaningful divide between the leaderships of the major political parties in Britain over the framework of public services. All accept the new Thatcherite settlement — its strengths and weaknesses. Argument is over the means of implementing it. In 1979 the British public sector appeared in scope and character much as it had in 1969 or even 1959, producing cars, ships, coal and steel, running planes and trains and operating a diffuse but wholly nationalised welfare state. By the time Blair came to power 18 years later this archaic political economy had been transformed into one that is still recognisable today. One day, Blair’s triumph in 1997 will seem like nothing more than a change of crew.

Traditionalists of both left and right contest this thesis. The Left protests that only Labour would have spent so much on hospitals and schools. Only Labour would have had the courage to introduce tax credits and such expensive central initiatives as Sure Start and New Deal. The Right protests that there was only one Thatcher, and her glory cannot be shared with upstarts, least of all Labour ones. No Thatcherite chancellor would have allowed the spending burst after 2001 or Brown’s reckless borrowing, even if it were private.

I doubt both these objections. All recent governments have behaved in much the same way at different stages of the electoral cycle. They tax and spend when they need to. They centralise power and hire more civil servants. Thatcher spent way beyond inflation on public pay, health and crime. Like Blair she was a strong believer in command and control through the patronage state. When I once suggested to her that she had not advanced the cause of laissez-faire she exploded. She believed in strong government ‘to do what is right’ and I should never use that ‘dreadful French phrase’ again. Insofar as leaders or parties might have behaved differently since the mid-1980s, the difference would have been of nuance, tangential to my thesis.

Blair has been a true son of Thatcher. Essentially a presidentialist, he appealed over the heads of political and democratic institutions to the people at large. He found a shattered ‘shell’ of a party and bent it to his will. His wayward treatment of policy shows a man devoid of personal ideology. He may not have been a dyed-in-the-wool Thatcherite, in the sense that Brown became one under the influence of the Treasury. To Blair Thatcherism was part reality-check, part opportunism. But neither he nor Brown changed the major premises of government policy they found on entering office in 1997. What appeared to have worked for the Tories they made certain worked for them.

I see no reason why the man who takes office as prime minister next week should seek any other way. As it says over the gates of the temple, there is no alternative.

A new edition of Simon Jenkins’s Thatcher & Sons is published by Penguin in the autumn.