Policy-Making in Britain

An Introduction

Maurice Mullard

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2005
• eBook ISBN: 9781134839612
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

The book provides a broad-based introduction to policy-making in Britain, exporing the legacy of the Thatcher era and charting the new context of policy-making in the 1990s. The authors examine the policy process within its ideological, political and economic context, discussing both the influence of Europe and the influence of local government. Having established a broad framework for analysis, the book focuses on a selection of particular policy areas; public expenditure, the NHS, Next Steps, water privatisation, pensions, education and immigration. The aim of the book is to give a sense of the actual dynamics of policy-making and to encourage students to think about the likely outcomes of policy-change, while making the connections between British public policy and the environment in which it is shaped.

Part I

The context of public policy-making

1
Political ideas

Robert Leach

IDEAS, GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC POLICY

The importance of political ideas to a study of government and public policy might be thought almost too obvious to require emphasis. Politics is often presented in terms of a conflict of ideas, for example between socialist planning and the free market. Public policy is frequently linked to specific ideas. Thus the economic policy of Margaret Thatcher's first administration in 1979 was associated with monetarism.

Yet there are perspectives on politics that tend to downgrade the importance of ideas. Traditional Conservatives in Britain, before the advent of Thatcher, emphasised that their approach to politics was based on common sense rather than theory, a practical response to pressing problems of the day (Hogg 1947, Oakeshott 1962). Ideas were suspect. Pragmatism was the hallmark of this traditional conservatism.

To some Western political scientists in the post-war era it seemed that politics involved essentially a competition for votes and influence, in which a pragmatic search for the middle ground was more important than ideological conviction (McKenzie 1963). Market research was employed to enable political parties to deliver what the voters wanted. Image and presentation were emphasised at the expense of ideas. Ideological debate seemed to have little place in a style of politics where the reasoned speech was replaced by the soundbite, and even the soundbite by the wordless photo opportunity.

However, the importance of political ideas has increasingly been re-emphasised, even in such an apparently unpromising context. What came to be called ‘Thatcherism’was a new style of conservatism which derided consensus, compromise and pragmatism, and emphasised the importance of ideas and principles. The main opposition parties in Britain desperately sought for their own ‘big idea’to counteract the free-market message of Thatcher's Conservatives. Other political movements, such as the Greens and feminists, presented their own alternative value systems which challenged dominant orthodoxies.

Moreover, even before this apparent rediscovery of the importance of ideas, it was always the case that even the most resolutely untheoretical parties, movements and politicians implicitly reflected concepts, assumptions and principles.

J.M.Keynes pointed out that ‘Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.’People are not always aware of the influences on their own ideas and behaviour, which may be more readily identified by others. Thus one should not necessarily accept at face value the traditional Conservative's rejection of ideas and principles. Some fairly consistent principles can be inferred from Conservatism in action over the years, as well as from the admittedly relatively thin written sources (Eccleshall 1990).

Public policy proceeds on the basis of ideological assumptions, even though these may not be clearly articulated, or even consciously recognised. Public policy problems are not ‘given’. The way in which problems are identified and interpreted reflects preconceived ideas. The search for solutions similarly reflects prior assumptions—some possible remedies may be rejected out of hand or not even considered. The ways in which policy is made and implemented will also involve essentially ideological notions, over, for example, the degree of consultation deemed desirable, or the scope for compromise. Finally, the ideas that people hold will influence the acceptance of policy, whether it is enthusiastically supported, grudgingly obeyed, or actively resisted Indeed the stability of the whole political and governmental system ultimately rests on what the mass of people think about politics, even if, most of the time, the masses seem to give little conscious thought to politics (Leach 1991).

The relationship between political ideas and public policy is complex and often two-way. Ideas constrain and in some senses determine public policy, yet public policy may in turn influence the ideas that people hold. Thus a change in the law, for example legalising homosexual relations between consenting adults, or making illegal discrimination on grounds of race or gender, may help to change public attitudes. The policy of privatisation pursued by the Thatcher governments clearly reflected a belief in government circles in the virtues of the free market and private ownership, but it can also be assumed that the sale of shares to the public on favourable terms helped the acceptance of ‘popular capitalism’.

WHAT IDEAS?

The ideas that influence government and public policy are not just the ideas of major political thinkers or even leading politicians, but ideas held at every level in society. The study of political thought has traditionally involved the detailed examination of the texts of a handful of great thinkers, such as Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, J.S.Mill and Karl Marx. Yet some of these thinkers are scarcely known to a wider public, and their direct influence on politics has been fairly minimal. Even Marx had a very limited impact in his own lifetime. Indeed, modern politics has often seemed to reflect the ideas of leading economists rather than essentially political thinkers—Adam Smith, Thomas Malthus, David Ricardo, Keynes, Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman. Yet even these names, well known to political leaders, top civil servants and academics, may be scarcely familiar to ordinary voters, although some of their ideas, perhaps in modified or vulgarised form, may have percolated through into popular consciousness.

The concern here is not so much with traditional political theory, but with values, ideas and political ideologies, held at a variety of levels, from the sophisticated to the relatively crude or even unconscious. Unfortunately the term ‘political ideology’is one that remains highly contentious, and is still often used in a limited, negative or pejorative way. Here the term is employed in the relatively comprehensive and neutral way in which it has been used recently by Seliger (1976) and other writers (McLennan 1976) to mean any loosely linked ideas, values or perspectives that inform political judgements and behaviour.

The use of the term does not imply any judgement on the worth or truth of the ideas discussed. Conservatism, socialism and liberalism might all be considered ideologies; so might fascism, feminism, nationalism, anarchism and ecologism. Moreover, each of these ideologies has its own subcategories. There are thus varieties of conservatism, socialism and feminism which indicate various tensions and contradictions within each ideology. Furthermore, ideas are held at different levels by different sections within society. Thus there may be considerable differences between the elite and popular versions of an ideology, such as Thatcherism. At one level it may involve the thought of Smith and Hayek. At another it may embrace ideas of the free market, privatisation and national sovereignty. At the lowest level it may amount to little more than slogans which have entered popular consciousness—the ‘Nanny State’, or ‘Up yours, Delors!’

One problem with some of the more familiar political ideologies is that they are closely identified with particular political parties. Some ideologies thus appear to be party ideologies, while other ideologies (for example, feminism) may not be closely associated with a particular party. Yet even where an ideology is popularly associated with a party or movement, it is often discussed in more general or abstract terms. Thus liberalism is commonly analysed in terms that have little relation to the record of the British Liberal Party, or the modern Liberal Democrats. Critics have often castigated Conservative governments for being insufficiently Conservative, while it is sometimes suggested that the Labour Party, popularly associated with socialism, is not a socialist party at all. This implied distinction between political ideologies and the ideas, programmes and records of political parties with which the ideologies are popularly associated is undeniably confusing to anyone embarking on a study of political ideas. It does, however, underline the complexity of the relationship between political ideas and political behaviour.

LIBERALISM, NEO-LIBERALISM AND COLLECTIVISM

Most modern political ideologies have a long pedigree, and it is impossible to discuss contemporary political ideas without reference to the past. This is particularly the case with ideas associated with the governments of Thatcher and John Major. A common term for these ideas is ‘neo-liberalism’. This implies that modern conservatism, as articulated by Thatcher or Major, is essentially a restatement of nineteenth-century liberalism. Both government rhetoric and opposition critics suggest that present-day conservatism involves a return to ‘Victorian values’. At the same time, some Conservative critics like Sir Ian Gilmour (1978, 1992) have persistently denied that. ‘Thatcherism’is true conservatism. The ideological tensions within modern conservatism can only be understood with reference to the competing Liberal and Conservative political traditions (Eccleshall 1986, 1990; Greenleaf 1983).

Liberalism of one form or another was the dominant ideology in nineteenth-century Britain. What has come to be called ‘classical liberalism’derived its political theory from the Whig opposition to royal absolutism in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and its economic theory from the free-market ideas of Smith, Malthus and Ricardo. Both strands of thought indicated the need for strict limits to be placed on government. Both were built on the assumptions of individualism—on the notion that society is nothing more than the sum of sovereign individuals who are each the best judge of their own interests. Practical implications involved toleration and freedom of thought in the religious and political spheres, and laissez-faire (or non-intervention) by governments in the economic sphere (Arblaster 1984, Gray 1986). For many critics, the ideology of liberalism was inseparably involved with the development of industrial capitalism, and the associated interests of the bourgeoisie.

It is this classical liberalism, and more particularly the economic ideas associated with it, that has been revived by neo-liberal or New Right theorists, such as Hayek and Friedman, publicised by think-tanks such as the Institute of Economic Affairs, the Adam Smith Institute and the Centre for Policy Studies, and taken up by Conservative politicians such as Keith Joseph, Thatcher and Nicholas Ridley, and more recently by Michael Portillo and John Redwood. Yet ironically, nineteenth-century conservatism, as articulated by Benjamin Disraeli and others, involved a sharp reaction against the fundamental tenets of liberalism. It was Disraeli's ‘one nation’conservatism that provided the inspiration for a later generation of Conservatives, including Harold Macmillan, Rab Butler and Iain Macleod in the postwar era (Beer 1982). Thatcherism was, in turn, a reaction against the paternalistic social reform of this strand of conservatism.

Political ideologies frequently contain competing strands and tensions, and even contradictions. This is as true of liberalism as conservatism. It was always clear also that there were manifest tensions within nineteenth-century liberalism —between, for example, on the one hand the strictly limited aspirations of the Whigs, and on the other hand the reforming radicalism of the utilitarians, who developed liberal principles to embrace representative democracy. This serves to remind us that liberalism, in the eyes of its own spokespersons and supporters, was essentially a political rather than an economic creed. Moreover, religious concerns also loomed far larger for the bulk of the Victorian electorate than is often realised. Nineteenth-century liberalism was more obviously the political voice of religious nonconformism than of industrial capitalism. Towards the end of the century many liberals were consciously rejecting laissez-faire ideas in favour of active state intervention. Yet to an extent this apparently revolutionary ‘New Liberalism’involved little more than a rationalisation of the actual practice of Liberal governments and Liberal councils, and an updating of Liberal theory to take account of Liberal public policy.

Indeed, to many contemporary observers and subsequent historians the nineteenth century involved, as it progressed, the growth of collectivism (Greenleaf 1983). The individualist assumptions behind early nineteenth-century liberalism, although highly influential, had never been universally accepted. On the one hand there were old-style Tories who had always been suspicious of liberal rhetoric about freedom, rights and equality. The liberal challenge to traditional values and institutions involved a rejection of authority and order which was ultimately damaging to the whole fabric of society, which Tories tended to see as a complex web of interdependent parts, involving mutual obligations. On the other hand, working-class radicals also emphasised the importance of social forces against which the individual was relatively powerless. High-sounding Liberal freedoms meant little to those who were constrained by economic pressures outside their control. Some Tories, like Shaftesbury or Michael Sadler, preached reform and state intervention from a sense of paternalist obligations to those who were in no position to help themselves. Working-class radicals demanded reform in the name of social justice. Such pressures reinforced growing collectivist tendencies within liberalism itself. Thus by the late nineteenth century all the major political ideologies in Britain—Toryism or conservatism, liberalism and a nascent socialism—were moving towards collectivist solutions to public policy problems.

The prospects for a Conservative Party apparently wedded to a declining landed interests appeared poor in the second half of the nineteenth century. Disraeli had helped conservatism to come to terms with the expansion of the franchise, and Randolph Churchill used the term ‘Tory democracy’to indicate the new Conservative interest in the mass electorate. The Tory Party contrived to win working-class votes by a two-pronged strategy—appealing to patriotic and imperialist sentiment, but satisfying some of the demands for social reform at home. This strategy succeeded to such an extent that the party was in power for nearly the whole period from 1886 to 1906, despite the dramatic expansion in the working-class vote which might have been expected to spell the party's doom. The Liberal Unionist politician, Joseph Chamberlain, and his sons Austen and Neville, then contrived to convert the Conservative and Unionist Party to the cause of protection, which was never apparently very popular with the electorate.

Liberalism was marked off from conservatism after 1886 by its association with religious nonconformism, its support for Irish Home Rule, its generally more internationalist and anti-war stance, and its continued adherence to free trade. Yet faith in free trade abroad was not matched by a similar faith in market forces at home, and under the influence of thinkers like T.H.Green, D.G.Ritchie, L.T.Hobhouse and J.A.Hobson, the party moved a long way from the laissez-faire creed which had been theoretically dominant in the early part of the nineteenth century. The 1906– 14 Liberal government helped to lay the foundations for the welfare state with the introduction of old-age pensions, school meals, state unemployment and health insurance, and labour exchanges. Moreover, while both the older parties had competed for the support of organised labour in the period before the First World War, it was the Liberal Party that was the more prepared to meet the demands of the trade unions and the infant Labour Party.

Socialist ideas had been propounded in Britain in the early part of the nineteenth century, most notably by Robert Owen, but made little apparent impact again until the 1880s. Even then what was to prove the major strand of British socialism owed little to Marx, and from the outset favoured gradual reform through existing institutions, rather than revolution. Some would argue that the Labour Party, effectively founded in 1900, was never really a socialist party, and that the term ‘labourism’is a more accurate description of its ideas than socialism. It was essentially founded and funded by trade unions, to protect the interests of unions and the working class. It only adopted a socialist programme in 1918, but even then doubts remained over the extent of its commitment to that programme. The socialists who supported the Labour Party from the beginning included the middle-class Fabians, committed to gradual reform, and th...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Figures
• List of Contributors
• Introduction
• Part I The context of public policy-making
• Part II Case studies
• Index