HISTORY, SOCIETY AND CULTURE UNDER MARGARET THATCHER, Appunti di Storia Politica

Scarica HISTORY, SOCIETY AND CULTURE UNDER MARGARET THATCHER e più Appunti in PDF di Storia Politica solo su Docsity! HISTORY, SOCIETY AND CULTURE 1. THATCHER AND THATCHERISM 1.1 - Introduction The first class will be delivered in the form of a traditional lecture with time for questions. The lecture provides the essential political framework for the rest of the course, which will focus on the relationship between the Thatcher governments and a wide-range of political, social, and cultural issues that came to dominate life in 1980s Britain. The lecture considers to what degree Thatcherism should be understood as a product of the crises of the 1970s, which finally undermined confidence in the ‘post-war consensus’. Although the scale of the crises are debatable, the lecture identifies some of the ways in which Thatcherite policies were designed to highlight and respond to the public’s perception of economic crisis and national decline. The lecture also reflects on the legacy of Thatcherism and the degree to which it succeeded in bringing about serious social and cultural change in the 1980s. 1.2 - Essential Reading/ Pensum This week we focus our reading on two important interpretations of Margaret Thatcher’s politics and of the meaning of ‘Thatcherism’. Andrew Gamble argues that Thatcherism was a wide-ranging and distinctive political project, which sought to embrace the economic liberalism of the New Right and restore the authority of the state in response to the economic and global crises of the 1970s. Shirley Letwin argues that Thatcherism is difficult to pin down because it was a political undertaking concerned with specific political problems. In other words, she sees Thatcherism as a historical phenomenon. It was neither a theory or an ideology, but nor was it just a random collection of ideas and actions. Furthermore, Letwin states that ‘Its aim has been to emphasize and promote the vigorous virtues in individuals, promote the family as the organization in which those virtues are transmitted and nurtured, and make Britain a flourishing island power through the liberation of the vigorous virtues’. Key Questions Gamble and Saunders texts: - What conditions facilitated Margaret Thatcher’s rise to power in 1979? Gamble and Letwin texts: - What was ‘Thatcherism’? Was it a theoretical programme? An ideology? Or a pragmatic approach to the politics of the late 1970s and 1980s? Gamble, Letwin, and Saunders texts: - Were all of the major policies we associate with the Thatcher governments planned before the Conservative Party won the 1979 general election? 1 The Lecture, Gamble, Letwin, Thane, Saunders, Brooke texts: - Would it be correct to state that there was a ‘Thatcherite revolution’ in Britain in the 1980s? - Why are the Thatcher governments still judged to be so important and controversial today? We are still living in the 80s today. In Britain, the election campaign was mainly dominated by Brexit and scetticism. Tacher was one of the most european politicians ever. By the time she left office, and then became extreme anti-euro. - Hard left socialist: many people did not want him to be leader and did not support him. - Tatcherism vs. socialism Both these issues have been still processing today. Today it is impossibile to have socialism and a real democracy in Britain. 1.3 - Researching and studying in the 1980s: new times? There was a big debate about what was really new in that period. How did Thatcherism fall? - Periodization only works if we think of it as a political? Is that only a lazy way to periodize? - Now a need to situate the 1980s within other long-term trajectories? - 1980s Britain as much the consequence as cause of long-term historical processes? Not even a majority supported that. Many people criticized it. - What role did Thatcherism play in social and cultural change? 1.4 - Other factors behind social change - Break down of Britain’s ‘postwar settlement’ - Including Keynesian economics, ‘full employment’ policies, and the welfare state - Technology, the global economy, and international relations - Perceptions of national ‘decline’ in 1960s & 1970s Building a comprehensive welfare state and creating employment. This was a model that really governed policy. In the 1970s this model started to break down. The economy became global, and Britain experienced a rapid decolonization. Britain was no longer competitive as economic power. 1.5 - Stuart Hall, Martin Jacues, and Cultural Studies Thatcherism was not the inevitable result of long-term social and cultural change. Important to decouple the social, economic, institutional and cultural conditions of the 1980s from the ascendency of Thatcherism. Left in Britain (particularly the Labour Party) needed to respond to major changes in British society in new ways They run magazines. They were the first people to think more broadly about the crise. Thatcherism was not the inevitabile result of long-term social and cultural change. They really wanted to separate cultural and social conditions from Thatcherism itself. Although they were on the left, they criticized the Labour Party because it did not respond to major changes in Britain society. 2 2.6 - Popular Capitalism & Rolling Back the State - Income tax lowered, VAT increased: she raised taxes on goods. Everyone was apparently taxed more equally. - Monetarism used to fight inflation - First wave of ‘privatisation’ began in 1981 - ‘Right to Buy’ scheme was introduced. This was a dramatic policy if we look at the long-term. - Attempts made to roll back the state in area of social security - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fP6CbYu3T7Y They introduced several private contracts. It became a failing service over time. 2.7 - Thatcher’s Wars, 1982 & 1984-87 A war against the trade unions and miners. This was what really saved the government by falling down. The government defecate the trades for the first time. 2.8 - Full Speed Ahead, 1983-90 Interested in privatising NHS, but only contracted out some services. London emerged as a financial capital because of the financial deregulation and ‘Big Bang’ of 1986. Thatcher was kicked off by her own party. - 1975-90 = rapid transformation of economy - Thatcher’s popularity suffers because of leadership style & ‘Poll tax’ Poor and rich people paid the same amount of taxes. She wanted to introduce a flat tax. Her popularity suffered because of her leadership style and ‘Poll tax’. The purpose was ending local services. 3. THE FALL OF THATCHER, 1990 3.1 - The legacy of Thactherism Social division increased in 80s despite Thatcher’s goal of creating a ‘classless society’ based on individualism, the family, & meritocracy. But some people are more talented than others, work more. This was not acceptable for Thatcher. She challenged principles and policies of the ‘postwar settlement’. Thatcherites believed in inequality & grew spectacularly. Challenged principles & policies of the ‘postwar settlement’. 3.2 - Loadsamoney Average real incomes rose by 37% between 1979 and 1992. The wealth of the country did increase, but the problem is that this was not solving inequality. But a selfish get rich quick culture developed, epitomised by Enfield’s ‘Loadsamoney’ southern yuppie character: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULeDlxa3gyc Unemployment reached highs not seen in 70s, but regional & usually in Labour & manufacturing areas. Thatcherism and narrating the Crisis of the 1970s? There was particularly an economic crise, but also a narrating of that: only Thatherim could solve that crise. 5 3.3 - Yes, Prime Minister Two Episodes from the TV series from 1986-88. Created by Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn: - Season 2, Episode 6: ‘The Patron of the Arts’ - Season 2, Episode 7: ‘The National Education Service’ Essential Reading/ Pensum - S.F. Borins, ‘Public choice: “Yes Minister” made it popular, but does winning the Nobel Prize make it true?’, Canadian Public Administration/Administration Publique Du Canada, 32, 1 (Spring/ Printemps 1988), pp. 12-26. 4. NORTHERN IRELAND AND THE HUNGER STRIKES 4.1 - Introduction Throughout the 1980s the Thatcher governments faced major challenges in their dealings with the politicalstruggle in Northern Ireland. Two of Thatcher’s closest political allies, Airey Neave and Ian Gow, were killed by Republican paramilitaries, and she herself narrowly avoided assassination in the Brighton Bombing of 1984. In this seminar we will focus on the Hunger Strikes as a means of reflecting more broadly on the Thatcher government’s handling of the ‘Troubles’ in Northern Ireland. Although Thatcher refused to ‘negotiate with terrorists’ and give in to the demands of the hunger strikers her period in office included the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement in 1985, which laid the foundations for the British-Irish governmental management of the Northern Irish ‘Troubles’. Arguably, this made an important contribution to the future of the Northern Irish peace process. Essential Reading/ Pensum We focus our reading on the Hunger Strikes of 1980-81 and the development of the Thatcher governments’ response to the ‘Troubles’ in Northern Ireland throughout the 1980s. Hennessey’s introduction and conclusion offer some important questions and talking points relating to the hunger strikes and their legacy. Mullholland’s chapter puts the hunger strikes in the broader historical context of the ‘Troubles’, it discusses the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985, and divides up the history of British strategies towards Northern Irish politics into three categories: ‘keeping the conflict at arm’s length’, ‘building the political “centre”’, and ‘bringing in the political “extremes”’. The two primary sources offer us unique insights into the attitudes of both the hunger strikers and Thatcher. A group of Irish Republicans decided they had enough of British rules. Rebels of 1916 represented an important point in the history. There was a minority of nationalists who disagreed with the majority. In 1921- 22 a deal was done. Some nationalists betrayed the movement. Northern Ireland was created, and was popolate by violents and Catholics who wanted to be part of the violent part. The problem still exists today. How did Thatcher address this issue? 6 Key Questions Hennessey text: - Why did the hunger strikes take place? - Who were the main participants and decision-makers during the hunger strikes? - What was the legacy of the hunger strikes for the IRA and the Republican movement? What did it achieve in the short and long term? Sands Diary text: - What does Bobby Sands’ diary tell us about the motivations and mentality of the hunger strikers? Thatcher ITN Interview text: - What does Thatcher’s interview with ITN tell us about her attitude towards the hunger strikers and the ‘Troubles’? - Did the Thatcher government adopt the correct stance in confronting the Republican prisoners in the Maze prison in the way that it did? Mullholland text: - How important was the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985 and what did it signal for the future? Hennessey and Mullholland texts: - Did the Thatcher government win the strike but lose the peace? 4.2 - Why did the Hunger Strike happen? The Republicans committed some terroristic acts, and they were imprisoned for many years. They were unfairly treated. Thatcher said that violence and terrorism should not be compromised. She tried to manipulate and guilt them. She was strictly “unflexible”. It is possible to recognise five concrete demands: - The right not to wear the uniform - The right not to do prison work - The right of free association with other prisoners, and to organise educational and recreational pursuits - The right to one visit, one letter and one parcel per week - Full restoration of remission lost through the protest These five demands were all part of this large debate. The main goal was legitimizing the cause of fighting. In 1967, the government recriminalized them. Thatcher was not going to do that. There are some new responses to this crisis. there were also problems with British and Irish names. There were towns with the same names, just to make confusion. 7 the Falklands War, why the British government decided to fight it, whether it should be seen as an imperial aftershock, and what impact it had on Thatcher’s popularity, the Conservative Party, and the Labour Party ahead of the 1983 General Election. Essential Reading/ Pensum Richard Vinen’s chapter offers you a sweeping account of the events of the Falklands War and some of the main talking-points, which historians have debated in recent years. Vinen’s chapter also reflects on why the British government chose to fight the Falklands War and what impact it had on British politics. Stephen Howe’s chapter locates the Falklands war and the Thatcher era within a broader history of decolonisation and imperial aftershocks. Howe does not recognise a consistent Thatcherite embrace of imperial nostalgia and he draws a more nuanced picture of where and how the Falklands War fits into the history of Britain’s long imperial story. Stuart Hall’s chapter is useful because it focuses on the question of identity and how Thatcher and her government might have used the Falklands War to awaken what he describes as a ‘gut patriotism’ that can be associated with Britain’s imperial past. Hall was on the left of the Labour Party and he also offers an insight into the failure of the Labour Party to carve out a distinctive position to rival the Thatcher government in the run up to the 1983 General Election. Thatcher’s speech at the end of the Falklands War offers us a chance to see how she articulated and exploited the conflict to try to win support for her wider political agenda. Key Questions Vinen text: - Why did Britain fight the Falklands War? - What impact did the Falklands War have on Thatcher’s own popularity and her position inside the Conservative Party? Howe text: - What does Howe argue about Thatcher’s relationship with the history of British imperialism? To what extent was it an important factor in the making of her foreign policy? - To what extent does Howe believe that the Falklands War boosted the Thatcher governments chances in the 1983 General Election? Hall text: - How did Stuart Hall interpret Thatcher’s handling of the Falklands War? What issues did Hall raise in terms of ‘identity’ and ‘populism’? - What does Hall’s essay suggest about Thatcherism as a whole? How did it function? - Why did Hall think the Labour Party was struggling to offer a rival political programme at this time? Thatcher Speech text: 10 - What lessons did Thatcher claim the country had learned during the Falklands War? What was the ‘Falklands factor’? How did she try to use the outcome of the Falklands War to win support for her wider political agenda? 6.2 - What was the starting point? In April 1982, Argentina undeclaredly invaded and occupied the Falkland Islands - a British colony. The conflict lasted 74 days and ended with an Argentine surrender on 14 June, returning the islands to British control. The conflict was a major episode in the protracted dispute over the territories' sovereignty. Argentina asserted (and maintains) that the islands are Argentine territory, while the British government regarded the action as an invasion of a territory that had been a Crown colony since 1841. Falkland Islanders, who have inhabited the islands since the early 19th century, are predominantly descendants of British settlers, and strongly favour British sovereignty. Neither state officially declared war, although both governments declared the Islands a war zone. Thatcher claimed that the islands were of tradition and stock. The islands were inherited from Spain in the 1800s, and had been under British rules for 150 years. At the very beginning, Margaret Thatcher’s political future was in serious question. The leader was facing sharp criticism from both her cabinet and the public in response to her domestic policies. Savage government spending cuts, a declining manufacturing industry and high unemployment all pointed to an early exit for the leader. Both governments wanted to introduce liberal markets. There were many similarities in terms of economics during the cold war. Britain was really interested in negotiating with Argentina. In 1981, the country was in a deep economic recession, and the crisis needed support. At that time, Britain was seen as a declining European power and was struggling economically. In addition, there was a clear economic pressure from the US. Thatcher government was not very successful, and was trying to save money. There was a high risk of a potential nuclear war. Britain responded by sending a task force, but was evidently unpreparred and had to fight a war far away from the land. They were going to lose something due to that conflict. Thatcher government was put under pressure by media but helped by the US, France, and other European countries. After the war, America pressured Britain to deal with negotiation with Argentina. Why did Britain fight the Falkland war? Why did Thatcher want to fight that war? What did she gain in terms of popularity and strenght? How did the government exploit the war? How did the Falklands contribute British government to win the elections in 1983? Britain could not stand an invasion like that. No country could. Britain had to protect the sovereignty of the Islands. There was a strong sense of responsibility. - Self-determination - Sovereignty - Self-confidence in Europe Bolstered by the successful outcome, the Conservative government in the UK was re-elected with an increased majority the following year. The result of the war really gave Thatcher the strenght and saved her 11 political skin. Until 1990, there was not a real threat to Thatcher’s position. Many factors contributed to reinforce Britain’s power. Churchill did not get the benefits after the Second World War. He had a very strong opponent at that time: the Labour government. Thatcher had, in reverse, a weak opponent. 6.3 - Was it an imperial war? Is it hard to find imperial links? The article is exploring four different examples on the imperial dimension. The Falkland islands were part of the imperial power, but Thatcher was not particularly interested in keeping it. Thatcher was more interested in pursuing a relationship with the US. They were all somehow postcolonial powers. Britain was trying to do the best in its own interest. However, Britain was a weak power compared to China, and unable to find a practical solution in order to afford the problem. - Why did the Empire still matter during the Falkland war? How did Thatcher exploit the crisis? Someone who does not have this background would more likely focus on the Second World War. Thatcher was able to transfer the population into peace time. She offered a potential alternative, while the Left did not. That gave her the possibility to mobilize effectively into election campaigns. The end of the Empire is considered for many with the transfer of Hong Kong to China in 1997. - How did Thatcherism try to merge ideas and solutions? This represented another side of politics in the 80s. A strong sense of Britishness was awakend. 6.4 - Protest and survive - Nuclear winter - Nuclear war Panic about nuclear attack. This was the highest point of panic since the 1960s. Thatcher played as a mediator between Gorbaciov and Reagan. Thatcherism was very associated to the Cold War climate. But when the war ended, Thatcherism went down in 1990. Even though Thatcher had never gained big support, the Left was terrible. The Labour party was committed to the nuclear disarmament. - 1980-1983: fracturing of the Labour Party and ideological problems. - Campaign for nuclear disarmament: there was a big influence in the 1960s. McSmith text - Why was there a resurgence of support for CND from 1979? - How seriously was the perceived nuclear threat in Britain at this time?  1980: 40% of people - How divided was the British Labour Party ahead of the 1983 General Election? Did nuclear issues and peace campaigns play any role in Labour’s defeat? The Labour Party was internally divided about nuclear issue and this brought to the spread of new insurgency members. It is hard to say the impact of the election, but it was not the smartest way to start a campaign. What will Britain do on a world stage? It was about isolating and dividing people: black or white! The Left is still complaining that the true Left was denied by a conspiracy Right. The Parliament did not 12