POLITICS

The third attempt to rid Britain of socialism

PETER RIDDELL

he end of the nightmare is still no- where in sight, Professor Stuart Hall of the Open University concluded a recent analy- sis of Thatcherism in Marxism Today, the Tatler of the fashionable Left.

Mrs Thatcher agrees. To her at least one, if not two, more Tory victories will be needed to get rid of socialism as a second force in British politics. Such unpre- cedented electoral success could lead to further realignment. But what would Bri- tian be like after three, and possibly four, terms of a Thatcher-dominated govern- ment?

The 1983-87 period has in some ways been a wasted opportunity — paradoxical- ly perhaps, a period of consolidation be- tween bursts of radical change. The abs- ence in 1983 of any need to think about, and justify, a second term — given the disarray of the opposition — not only produced a remarkably thin manifesto (Why take unnecessary risks?) but also, more significantly, led to a loss of momen- tum. The 1983-84 session was largely occu- pied enacting Bills dropped at the election. And there was insufficient thought about how to use the victory.

It has only been in the last year or so that the Government has started to grapple with major areas of social policy like education and housing. But normal pre- election caution has led to the deferment until the next parliament of contentious measures like rent de-control, water priva- tisation and English rates reform.

This experience is why the current man- ifesto matters. It is not so much a question of what is promised as of the attitudes of those who will implement the decisions if the Tories are successful. And it is still if, not when — though in this article I am assuming a working Tory majority in the Commons rather than a hung Parliament, which would change everything.

The probability is that in May or Octo- ber (still a toss-up between them) Mrs Thatcher will offer more of the same, judging by what has been emerging from the dozen policy groups set up to produce ideas for the manifesto.

The groups of ministers, backbenchers and sympathisers have been meeting roughly once a fortnight — breakfast with Lord Young, tea or early evening drinks with Mr Kenneth Clarke and somewhat perfunctory discussions with Mr Nigel Lawson (who has already thought most thoughts). The word is that there will be few surprises.

The essence of Mrs Thatcher's vision for the 1990s is negative — to make it impossi- ble to return to what she calls socialism or, more accurately, the interventionist wel- fare capitalism of the 1960s and 1970s. By the early 1990s most of the remaining state-owned industry will have been sold to the private sector. Electricity supply, steel and water will go quickly, to be followed by the partial privatisation of British Coal and British Rail. I also doubt whether the BBC would survive a Tory victory in its present form.

Yet if the nationalised industries largely disappear as a 'problem' there remain the local authorities and the public services. The result of Mr Kenneth Baker's current thinking on a national curriculum, on a new negotiating structure for teachers' pay and conditions and on increasing the inde- pendence and financial responsibility of individual schools would be to make local education authorities largely redundant. Similarly, the increasing use of urban development corporations and Whitehall grants in inner cities would further under- mine local authorites. Together with the community charge and national business rate all this indicates the need for a further change in local government structure to- wards single-tier multi-purpose authorities. A lot of the problems of alleged and actual extremism by local councils might, of course, be solved by changing the local voting system (not necessarily the thin end of a national wedge) but Mrs Thatcher will never consider that.

On the economic side it is a fair bet that there will be a public spending squeeze (sooner rather than later), with defence and social security reviews (though neither will be given such titles). Britain may at last fully enter the European Monetary System — and nothing much will change. Higher marginal tax rates will be reduced, though current envious comparisions with the US can be misleading, given that what matters is the effective rather than nominal rate before various allowances. Perhaps most intriguing of all there will be a further attempt to undermine union power in the public sector by moving away from nation- al agreements towards increasing regional differentials in pay.

But will all this produce a dynamic self-sustaining enterprise culture? Possibly, in some sectors and some parts of the country, though I am sure we will still be talking about unfavourable productivity and unit cost comparisions with West Germany and the US. It will be the familiar story of the management of Bri- tain's relative, if not absolute, decline.

The social consequences are also ambi- guous. The whole thrust of the current strategy — whether to increase the number of shareholders or to extend parental choice in education — is to strengthen the position of the existing middle class and to bring the 'new' technological and service working class within the capitalist net. It is like the 1867 Reform Act which enfranch- ised the 'respectable' working class and similarly it may benefit the Conservatives electorally. But a sizeable minority may be left outside — an increasingly alienated under-class, especially in the inner cities, who may exacerbate the very problem of law and order on which the Tories have placed such emphasis. , The fundamental question is whether a third or fourth Thatcher term would pro- duce irreversible changes. The intellectual tide is still with Thatcherism and the traditional bastions of Labour power, big- city local authorities, council estates, nationalised industries and trade unions, have been challenged and undermined. By the early 1990s little may be heard of taking even British Telecom and British Gas back into public or social ownership. The right of tenants to buy their council houses is already the new consensus and Mr John Patten's initiatives promise the end of Town Hall controlled estates and a revival of the private rented sector.

By the early-to-mid-1990s the landscape may have changed, as it did in the 1900s and 1940s. But nothing in politics is forever and Mrs Thatcher's luck could run out. The Westland crisis showed how even, or perhaps especially, the most self-confident Prime Minister can trip. It was nearly fatal a year ago. It could be so next time. Health permitting, her early retirement would be out of character. As a crusader Mrs Thatcher believes there are more battles to be fought and she will go on fighting them. But when the end comes it may well, as so often in the past, be bloody, both for her and her party.

Peter Riddell is political editor of the Financial Times.