INTRODUCTION
John Major as a successor to Margaret Thatcher was always going to find life difficult. He says himself he rejected any talk of his creating 'Majorism' as Margaret created 'Thatcherism', claiming instead that "The Conservative Party does not belong to any one individual" . His priorities (at least initially) as he saw them were clear; inflation, inflation, inflation. Further to that, he aimed to reduce unemployment, although not through artificial job creation, but by preserving a climate of low inflation in which growth would be encouraged. He aimed to privatise that which was feasible and had not already been done.
But the climate in which John Major became Prime Minister was markedly different from that of 1979 and so, by necessity, the leadership and policy-making styles of Thatcher and Major were different. Significant in his priorities were consolidation and continuity; it was for this reason, primarily, he was elected by the Conservatives; and for this reason it is difficult to see a Major agenda as distinct from Thatcher. Nevertheless there were some interesting differences between the two leaders which I shall attempt to draw here, emphasising the areas in which Major departs from Thatcherism; particularly in his attitude towards EMU and industrial policy.
During this essay I shall look first broadly at monetary and fiscal policy and subsequently examine the position within and attitudes towards Europe, an issue which, by its very nature, must have a profound effect on the direction of a nation's macroeconomic policy. Their styles of leadership of course diverge greatly which is a significant factor in the differing culture of the times. Finally I shall examine the how the attitudes of the two Prime Ministers differed towards industrial policy. I shall attempt to demonstrate that macroeconomic policy remained largely consistent through over the Conservative time in office, however Major took much greater interest in the microeconomic policy which had been largely ignored under Thatcher.
MACROECONOMIC POLICY
The Thatcher Legacy
Where Thatcher had come in on a ticket of revolutionary policy, the general feeling when Major assumed office in 1990 was that, whilst the voters had taken as much as perhaps they could in terms of state retrenchment, there was no strong call for a radical new agenda. To this end, Major's leade...
... middle of paper ...
...lowing his former leader. Rather, it may be that, as asserted by Dennis Kavanagh, Major saw the Conservative Party as one of continuity not revolution (this would explain both his broad adoption of her policies and his less strident pursuit of them). Where the goals of the 1980s were necessarily economic, Major has taken them and tilted them toward the social; Thatcherism was defined by what it fought against; 'it is less clear what the dragons are in the 1990s' .
BIBLIOGRAPHY
· Chrystal and Price, Controversies in Macroeconomics, ch.11, (1994)
· Crafts, N. F. R., 'Industry', from Kavanagh and Seldon, The Major Effect, (1994)
· Hutton, W., The State We're In, (1996)
· Jay, P., 'The Economy', from Kavanagh and Seldon, The Major Effect, (1994)
· Kavanagh, D., 'A Major Agenda?', from Kavanagh and Seldon, The Major Effect, (1994)
· Major, J., John Major, The Autobiography, (1999)
· Minford, P., 'How Good a Chancellor is Kenneth Clarke?', from Economic Review, 12(3), (1995)
· Oliver, M., 'The Conservative years: A Revolution in Economic Policy?', from Economic Review, 14(4), (1997)
· Wilks, S., 'Economic Policy', from Dunleavy et al, Developments in British Politics Vol. 4, (1993)
In 1924, for the first time the Labour government was appointed, headed by leader Ramsay Macdonald. At this time, a topic of much political debate was trade, Conservatives adopting a protectionist policy contrasting with the Liberal and Labour views in favour of free trade, and as the strongest free trade party it was asked to take office. Their main aims in 1924 were to deal with the increase in relative poverty in the country, mainly the situation of living conditions, and economically to restrict expenditure and maintain a balanced budget, known as retrenchment. It was also an important aim of the 1924 Labour government to prove themselves fit to govern, as a minority government they were under pressure to please, which many argue compromised the ideals of the party in an attempt to stay in power.
In conclusion, before David Cameron came into power, the Conservatives were in the right side of politics were Thatcher left them. He brought the party closer to the centre. He changed people’s perception about the Conservative party because he changes a lot of things leaving few things unchanged. David Cameron definitely moved the party to the centre of politics.
Firstly, the ‘U-turn’ policies of 1971 to 1972 demonstrate clearly the lack of control that is evident throughout Heath’s premiership. Cracks were beginning to develop after these policies, which indicate a rough start to Heath’s reign. This is evident as the economic U-turn established that there was a growing number of unemployment and a growing inflation record that reached over one million. There were cuts in taxation and lows interests increased borrowing and house prices. Compared to a period of ‘affluence’ in Wilson’s government especially with his social policies, there is unprecedented change as the inflation demonstrated that the retail prices rose by 8.6% between 1970 to 1973 which acclimated to the U-turn policies in 1971-1972 which demonstrated a retreat from the free market and principles that had to be outline to maintain full employment leading Heath to give state aid to key industries including Rolls Royce. However, the ‘U-turn’ policies demonstrates largely that Heath had been seen by the public that he was too willing to give up on his aims and objectives, lacking a clear sense of direction indicating that the failures situated in his government led people finding him unreliable as a PM.
This essay will address whether New Labour contained policies with which it wished to pursue, or was solely developed in order to win elections. It is important to realise whether a political party that held office for approximately 13 years only possessed the goal of winning elections, or promoted policies which it wished to pursue. If a party that held no substance was governing for 13 years, it would be unfair to the people. New Labour was designed to win elections, but still contained policies which it wished to pursue. To adequately defend this thesis, one must look at the re-branding steps taken by New Labour and the new policies the party was going to pursue. Through analysis, it will be shown that New Labour promoted policies in regards
I believe that it's’ important to use our constitution as a guiding tool to help appoint the correct people for the job.John Maynard Keynes was a British economist where he fundamentally changed the theory and practices of macroeconomics and economic policies of government. Although he was revolutionary most of his policies were controversial and used Keynesianism economic to get people to stay away from them . His approach to macroeconomic management was different since the previous traditional laissez-faire economists believed that an economy would automatically correct its imbalances and move toward a state of equilibrium, They expected the dynamics of supply and demand to help the economy adjust to recession and inflation without government action. Laissez-faire economics thus regarded layoffs, bankruptcies and downturns in the economy not as something to be avoided but as elements of a natural process that would eventually improve. However that was not the case for the great depression. Keynes also believed that a given level of demand in an economy would produce employment however he insisted that low employment during the depression resulted from inadequate
When Australia’s 21st Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, was swept into power in December 1972 there was huge anticipation for dramatic and swift change. Australia had been under the control of a conservative liberal government for 23 consecutive years, and Whitlam’s promises if social change were eagerly anticipated. Whitlam, despite his failings as a negotiator, managed to implement a huge array of reforms and changes, many of which shaped Australia into the country it is today. However is that enough to say he succeeded? Even Whitlam today admits that he regrets doing “too much too soon”, and perhaps Whitlam’s government was a government that was too socially progressive for its time, which could perchance have been a foreshadowing of things to come for the most recent labor government of Julia Gillard which has been labeled by some as the most incompetent government since Whitlam. Gough Whitlam has had the most books written and published about him than any other Australian Prime Minister to Date. This essay will argue that Whitlam was a successful leader of the Australian Labor Party (ALP), who had the ability and charisma to lead Australia in an era of prosperity; he did however succumbed to a few grave errors of judgment that ultimately led to his downfall, however his ultimate goal was to transform Australia which he achieved. Whitlam’s’ errors were seen as being due to his inability take advice from senior figures on how to turn his amateur government into a competent one and his inflexible approach to dealing with the hostile senate that the Australian public gave him, and often led to his government being labeled the worst in Australian history and as a failure.
Perhaps Roosevelt’s greatest blunders occurred in his attempts to fix the economy. The Nation claimed that “some [of his programs] assisted and some retarded the recovery of industrial activity.” They went so far as to say that “six billion dollars was added to the national debt.” All of this is true. Roosevelt’s deficit spending, provoked by the English economist John Maynard Keynes, did add to the already high national debt while his programs did not solve the record-high unemployment rate. This “enormous outpouring of federal money for human relief and immense sums for public-works projects [that] started to flow to all points of the compass” and nearly doubled the nation’s debt also brought about many changes that were, in a large sense, revolutionary (Document C).
The Thatcherism ideology was part of the establishment of privatisation, cutting off the taxes and reducing public expenditure in health and care services in order to improve Britain’s economy, as a consequence more than 50 identities were privatised by
- In the 1990's conservatism strife to reduce the size of government, reduce public spending, reform the taxation laws to encourage investments, deregulate business to promote economic growth, and manage the fiscal and monetary sides of the economy
I will be attempting to evaluate and analyse the term of Thatcherism'. I will raise issues and introduce her consensus and strategies as a PM. To what extent or degree has the Thatcher government dominated British politics.
A change in strategy leads to new perspective over certain matters. During FDR’s tenure many new reforms were adopted as part of the New Deal. Some o...
The Differences of Gladstone And Disraeli In Their Policies Regarding The British Empire and Foreign Policy
Story, Ronald and Bruce Laurie. The Rise of Conservatism in America, 1945-2000: A Brief History with Documents. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2008. Print.
Governance and a concept of a sort of pragmatism were at the core of the New Labour ethos when it arrived to power in 1997. They were promoting an outcome-oriented approach rather than a more ideological one (Temple, 2000). The New Labour approach to planning contrasted with the view of the New Right which preceded it by adopting a much more positive approach to planning (Rydin, 2013,
The theory of economics does not furnish a body of settled conclusions immediately applicable to policy. It is a method rather than a doctrine, an apparatus of the mind, a technique for thinking, which helps the possessor to draw correct conclusions. The ideas of economists and politicians, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist." (John Maynard Keynes, the General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money p 383)