Margaret Thatcher came to understand this quite late in her career, and on becoming leader of the Conservative Party, set about trying to ‘roll back the state’. The organised opposition to ‘Thatcherism’ came from the Labour Party, trade unions, the BBC, local government, civil servants, academia, large companies, charities, and similar, not to mention opposition from 'wet' Tories within the Conservative Party itself. Those forces remain in place today, and if anything, have been greatly strengthened. They are the Left. They are the people who rely for payment of their wages on enforced deductions from your wages: i.e. taxes. They all work for the state or other public bodies, or in the case of charities and the corporate business sector, for organisations subsidised by the taxpayer. Their opposition to Thatcher was virulent, bitter and at times violent, on a scale perhaps never before seen against a government of modern times. The reason for this was not really because of Thatcher's policies as such. In fact, virtually all post-War governments, both Labour and Conservative, had implemented similar policies (albeit not to such an ambitious or sweeping extent); rather, it was because Thatcher explicitly proposed to attack, undermine, and where possible, systematically dismantle, the very basis of the Left's power in Britain.
Thatcher's friends and allies were, variously, the entrepreneurial lower middle-class, most of the provincial Tory Party, much of the ordinary working class - especially in the south of England - and socially-conservative and patriotic elements within the Labour Party, who realised the Left was descending into lunacy. Thus, the battle lines back then were quite similar to those that exist today over Brexit. Thatcher failed in her objectives and, if anything, the reach of the state expanded under her governments. One problem with Margaret Thatcher was that she had been formed politically under the post-War social-democratic consensus. Her melodramatic Damascene conversion to Austrian economics and Gladstonian liberalism was her scientific intellect attempting to find a sufficiently-powerful antidote to her essentially leftist leanings, but she could not entirely shake-off those formative influences and was not sufficiently ruthless in dealing with the Left. Nevertheless, 'Thatcherism' is a term coined in a British context for a style of government that goes against social-democratic policies in that it minimises state intervention; supports a concomitant contraction of the state; encourages economic liberalism, government spending cuts, tax cuts, deregulation, privatisation and flexible labour markets; and that pursues a patriotic stance at home and abroad.
We are not Thatcherites - in fact, we are not even supporters
of the Conservative Party - and we have different motivations to Thatcher for
attacking the Left, but we agree with her method. In order to defeat the Left, we must
dismantle the state – we think the BBC is a good starting point. It is the centre of the Left’s power in this
country.
Ours is not an argument against the state per se. That is an entirely other subject and a
different debate. For us, the point is
that the state, if it exists, must be minimal, and must - so far as is possible
– work broadly in the interests of the indigenous population. We believe the two things go together: a larger state bureaucracy means more Leftism, a lesser need for self-reliance among the population, a large number of intrusive and inefficient state-run or state-subsidised services that are available not just to the indigenous British but to all-comers; whereas, a smaller state bureaucracy, means less Leftism, a greater need for self-reliance among the population, but more focused and efficient essential services directed to the needs of the indigenous British people and no other. We want the latter, not the former. For that to happen in Britain, we must have a
Ground Zero Revolution in which the state bureaucracy, and other similar
bureaus such as those in local government and large companies, are dismantled
under process of law. This is true
radicalism: a return to the roots of good governance founded in communities,
families and individuals, instead of reliance on large impersonal entities that
are funded at the point of a gun. This
blog focuses on the BBC, but from time-to-time we may touch on the other lines
of attack and how radical reform can be achieved.
To be clear, it is not that we are uncaring right-wing free
marketeers who want to remove social safety nets. Quite the opposite: we want to see a system
built around the needs and interests of the British people. We think that requires a restoration of tradition,
family, community, autonomy and responsibility, in which a minimal state agrees
to provide safety nets on the understanding that people learn to stand on their
own two feet and take responsibility for themselves, their families and their
local communities.
What could replace the BBC?
We want to see public broadcasting replaced with plurality. There is choice already, but not enough. Most broadcasting is bland and conformist,
and we think the existence of the BBC has something to do with this. The private sector will fill the void to a
large extent, but local communities and conscientious individuals could
organise their own broadcasting stations, covering issues that matter to them
instead of having concerns and issues imposed on them. With digital technology, this is now
possible. The BBC itself cannot
contribute to a pluralistic and democratic media environment. It was founded as a paternalistic
broadcaster, at arm’s length from the state, intended to inform, entertain and
educate – and this was perfectly admirable and laudable for its time - but as
society changed, the BBC lost its way and has gradually become a maternalistic
general purpose busy-body agency of the state, smothering and stifling
everybody, and telling everybody what is good for them.
