3.1. Thatcher and the ‘Other’?

The perception of radicalism in the Thatcher era can be best captured in symbolic
terms. As Bentham asserts, non-existent entities can have all too real effects.
It is a very significant matter to find a balance between ‘actual’ events and ‘real’ ones
perceived by people. The Thatcher Governments took many decisions, committed a lot of acts
which have a symbolic level, rather than a material change. 1
This symbolic change was articulated against the ‘Other’. The ‘Winter of Discontent’
was often presented as the ‘other’ of Thatcherism. This version of the ‘Winter of Discontent’
2
was connected with the presentation of the ‘post-war consensus’ and how it had failed. It
consisted of ‘Keynesian’ demand management, corporatist practices and social democratic
ones. The discourse of Thatcher was effective in establishing a diagnosis of the illnesses from
the past and a prognosis for the future. The terms of Keynesianism, Keynesian Welfare State,
post-war consensus, its social democracy are used within political science by Thatcher. The
extent of Keynesian economics was questioned by many commentators. Similarly, the idea of
social democracy in Britain was also doubted. 3
Definitely there is an evidence of a move from the rhetoric of expansionism and a
move to monetarist economic policy. It was mistakenly admitted that Thatcher Governments
were the integrators of a discursive break with the post-war consensus.
Thatcherism, recruited the ‘past’ as its Other, was able to sustain its radicalism
throughout the 1980s. It was through reference to the presence of different ‘Others’. The
process of state power centralisation away from local authorities was legitimised by reference
to loony left Labour councils. The media was an accomplice in this strategy – variously
generalising single incidents of the actions of local government. As most of the local
governments were full of crypto-socialists and self-interested politicians and bureaucrats, they
played the role of antagonists to Thatcherite reforms. The presentation of these events served
to obscure the information that almost all councils adopted a strategy of accommodation to
the reforms of Thatcher. Union power was a key Britain’s economic ill. The Thatcher
Government decided to take restrictions on union activities as the fundamental reforms of
British industrial relations. Thatcher’s position was only strengthened when trade unions
leaders demanded for democratic ballots. The results of that was the strike in 1984 called by
the National Union of Miners which lasted almost a year. Thatcher was forced to engage all
1
Bentham, J. The Panopticon Writings, London: Verso, 1995, p. 45
2
Hay, C. ‘Narrating Crisis: The Discursive Construction of the Winter of Discontent’, Sociology, 30/2, 1996
3
Hay, C. Re-stating Social and Political Change, Buckingham: Open University Press, 1996.
the state resources to defeat the strikers. Failure meant a calamity for the coal industry.
However, the broader sense lay in the symbolic significance. The strike of 1984 was seen by
Thatcher as the threat to the prosperity of the nation. Arthur Scargill, the leader of the
National Union of Miners, was pleased to participate in the opposite which invokes
dichotomies like workers-bosses, socialism-capitalism and so on. The defeat of the miners set
a context for future relations in the industry. The event was even important in marking a
‘break’ with the past. 4
Commentators agreed that the governments of Thatcher were radical when it comes to
their privatisation initiatives. Sales of council houses brought benefits for many people. It was
also proved that it benefited the Conservative’s electoral. The privatisation was also
beneficial, but not in such a huge extent. Although there was some disagreement about the
governments’ motivations in pursuing privatisation, people’s understanding of Thatcherism
became the key factor. It was Thatcher who used the term ‘privatisation’ while previous
reforms used only the term ‘de-nationalisation’. Post-war period was fully ended as the
Labours were greatly on the defensive on the issue. Perhaps the privatisation question invoked
in the public mind the binary oppositions of ‘individualism’ vs. ‘collectivism’ (state-owning)
and ‘individual choice’ vs. ‘state control’. 5

4
Morgan, K.O. The People’s Peace: British history 1945-1990, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990, pp. 450-
468
5
Morgan, K.O. The People’s Peace: British history 1945-1990, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990, pp. 450-
468