devoted to leisure rather than work, is superior to that elsewhere and in any case what people want.â If that argument sounds familiar, it should: It is what is now said about France.
There is a point that should be emphasized here. In terms of key economic indicators, Britain was not declining in absolute terms; in fact, the economy had grown at a slow but steady average of 2 to 3 percent per annum since the end of the Second World War. What Ingham and Henderson are lamenting is Britainâs relative decline. Once the worldâs foremost power, it had now been outpaced by Germany.
And why? This is a key question. One hypothesis is that the economic policies Britain pursued after the Second World War destroyed Britainâs natural genius for greatness. A second is that Britain simply followed a natural economic pattern: It experienced rapid growth at the onset of industrialization, but slower growth thereafter. If Germany was, in the 1970s, growing faster than Britain, this was because Germany had begun the process of industrialization later than Britain. More to the point, having been leveled in the Second World War, Germany was starting from zero, which severely skews any statistical analysis.
I mention this argument to Sir Bernard, who agrees that yes, Britainâs decline was only a relative decline. But his replyâand again, this may be taken as the official Thatcherite viewâwas that even this relative decline neednât have occurred.
BI: The big difference was, after the war, the Germans let rip, and we didnât. I mean, we had controls, we hadâwe were a semi-socialist society. Not with the apparatus of the Soviet Union or anything like that, but we were a semi-socialist society with all kinds of restrictions and controls that held back enterprise. Whereas they let it go. Much quicker. I mean, I remember that during the â50sâ Why donât they have rationing, and why do we? I mean, we won the bloody war!
We won the bloody war. To understand Thatcherism, start with this sentiment. We won the bloody war, and we used to run the world. Now we have rubbish and dead bodies piled on our streets, and compared to German cities, gleaming and rebuilt with Marshall Aid (never mind that the trees in those cities are exactly the same height, one of the most chilling sights in the world, when you consider what it means), we look shabby.
This sense of humiliation was Thatcherâs fuel.
At the age of fifty-three, Margaret Thatcher became the first female prime minister in the history of Britain. At the age of fifty-four, she became the most unpopular prime minister in the history of Britain. By no standards could her first years in office be termed a success. Zealously embracing the monetarist prescription, her government attempted to control inflation by raising interest rates. To her dismay, inflation rose, and unemployment quickly doubled.
In 1980, at the Conservative Party conference, Thatcher made one of her most famous speeches. This would not be Heath redux. âTo those waiting with bated breath for that favorite media catchphraseâthe U-turn, I have only one thing to say. You turn if you want to ââ
Dramatic pause.
â The Ladyâs not for turning! â 23
A punch line perfectly executed. A roaring crowd. The words came from the title of Christopher Fryâs play The Ladyâs Not for Burning, and even those who did not understand the reference understood the drama.
Ronald Reagan took office in 1981. Britain was now in a severe recession, with unemployment at its highest rate since the Second World War. According to Keynesian orthodoxy, the government should have been stimulating demand, even if this created inflation. Instead, it continued to attempt to curb inflation by controlling the money supply. Thatcherâs chancellor, Geoffrey Howe, unveiled another counter-Keynesian budget, raising taxes. Keynesian economists throughout Britain
There is a point that should be emphasized here. In terms of key economic indicators, Britain was not declining in absolute terms; in fact, the economy had grown at a slow but steady average of 2 to 3 percent per annum since the end of the Second World War. What Ingham and Henderson are lamenting is Britainâs relative decline. Once the worldâs foremost power, it had now been outpaced by Germany.
And why? This is a key question. One hypothesis is that the economic policies Britain pursued after the Second World War destroyed Britainâs natural genius for greatness. A second is that Britain simply followed a natural economic pattern: It experienced rapid growth at the onset of industrialization, but slower growth thereafter. If Germany was, in the 1970s, growing faster than Britain, this was because Germany had begun the process of industrialization later than Britain. More to the point, having been leveled in the Second World War, Germany was starting from zero, which severely skews any statistical analysis.
I mention this argument to Sir Bernard, who agrees that yes, Britainâs decline was only a relative decline. But his replyâand again, this may be taken as the official Thatcherite viewâwas that even this relative decline neednât have occurred.
BI: The big difference was, after the war, the Germans let rip, and we didnât. I mean, we had controls, we hadâwe were a semi-socialist society. Not with the apparatus of the Soviet Union or anything like that, but we were a semi-socialist society with all kinds of restrictions and controls that held back enterprise. Whereas they let it go. Much quicker. I mean, I remember that during the â50sâ Why donât they have rationing, and why do we? I mean, we won the bloody war!
We won the bloody war. To understand Thatcherism, start with this sentiment. We won the bloody war, and we used to run the world. Now we have rubbish and dead bodies piled on our streets, and compared to German cities, gleaming and rebuilt with Marshall Aid (never mind that the trees in those cities are exactly the same height, one of the most chilling sights in the world, when you consider what it means), we look shabby.
This sense of humiliation was Thatcherâs fuel.
At the age of fifty-three, Margaret Thatcher became the first female prime minister in the history of Britain. At the age of fifty-four, she became the most unpopular prime minister in the history of Britain. By no standards could her first years in office be termed a success. Zealously embracing the monetarist prescription, her government attempted to control inflation by raising interest rates. To her dismay, inflation rose, and unemployment quickly doubled.
In 1980, at the Conservative Party conference, Thatcher made one of her most famous speeches. This would not be Heath redux. âTo those waiting with bated breath for that favorite media catchphraseâthe U-turn, I have only one thing to say. You turn if you want to ââ
Dramatic pause.
â The Ladyâs not for turning! â 23
A punch line perfectly executed. A roaring crowd. The words came from the title of Christopher Fryâs play The Ladyâs Not for Burning, and even those who did not understand the reference understood the drama.
Ronald Reagan took office in 1981. Britain was now in a severe recession, with unemployment at its highest rate since the Second World War. According to Keynesian orthodoxy, the government should have been stimulating demand, even if this created inflation. Instead, it continued to attempt to curb inflation by controlling the money supply. Thatcherâs chancellor, Geoffrey Howe, unveiled another counter-Keynesian budget, raising taxes. Keynesian economists throughout Britain
Similar Books
