The Role of Ideology in Policy Development

chapter 6 Ideologies in the Establishment of Personal Social Services in 1960s and 70s

2007-11-13T16:59:00.000Z

As discussed in Chapter 5, the 1960s and 1970s was the period of the establishment of personal social services in Britain. This is manly because the new united personal social services department was set up in every local government and it was the moment the personal social services was officially formed as one of the unitary social service area. Along with significant expansion of responsibilities of local authority and social care right by a range of legislations in 1960s, this administrative change led to massive increase of provision of the services throughout 1970s.

This development might be seen far more dramatic if the situation of economic crisis started from 1960s and Britain suffered severely in 1970s is considered. In other words, the most significant expansion of personal social services happened during the worst economic circumstance in British history. This is one of the reasons why the establishment and expansion of personal social services cannot be understood by structural approach. Also this is why we try to find the relationship between political ideology and the development in this study.

Having said that in Chapter 5, key policy documents – White Papers and Green Papers – are the subjects for the analysis to find out ideological influence in the development in 1960s and 70s. So what context they were produced and what implication they have in the development is discussed first. Then they are analysed to see how challenges need to be tackled were recognised; what objectives were presented; what philosophical thinking was based; what actors were assumed, how rights and responsibility of citizens were understood; and what strategic direction were chosen. The analysis is conducted while they are compared with contemporary literatures in personal social services (or welfare services^¹). Discussion to find out the relationship of the political ideology in the Government with them follows the analysis.

The policy documents and the development of personal social services

Since World War II, the development of personal social services had tended to focus on certain groups which had been identified at different times as having special needs –such as children, the elderly, and mentally disabled (Holgate & Keidan, 1975). The group drawing attention in the early 1960s was children, juvenile delinquent in particular. The Ingleby Committee (1960) was appointed by the Conservative Government in 1956 and published their report in 1960. It was the first formal study of comprehensive social service for family and the preventive social work with families was legitimated in the 1963 Children and Young Person Act (Cooper, 1983). The Labour Party in opposition appointed Longford Committee with the same theme and their report Crime – a challenge to us all was published in 1964 suggesting abandoning the concept of criminal responsibility for young people under sixteen and treating their criminality on welfare lines (Holgate & Keidan, 1975).

The White Paper, The Child, the Family and the Young Offender (Home Office, 1965), published in 1964 after the Labour Party came to power, was the combination of Ingleby and Longford thinking with a new set of recommendation for dealing both with young offenders and with children in need of protection (Bilton, 1979; Cooper, 1983). However, the radical proposal of it to abolish juvenile courts in favour of family councils run by the local authority children’s departments triggered considerable criticism (Holgate & Keidan, 1975). This led to a modified successor, Children in Trouble (Home Office, 1968). As the Government accepted that young offenders should be dealt with on a professional and informal basis by social workers before legal procedure (Heywood, 1973), this proposal of the White Paper was reflected in the 1969 Children and Young Persons Act.

After the considerable social changes such as development of new drugs which made it possible for the mentally ill to be treated safely in community and new thinking that Down’s syndrome children are educable (Lowe, 2005), personal social services for mentally disabled and people with mental health problem were reviewed. Two White Papers published in early 1970s were the outcomes: Better Services for the Mentally Handicapped (Department of Health and Social Security, 1971) and Better Services for the Mentally Ill (Department of Health and Social Security, 1975). However, a comprehensive review of the whole personal social services was carried out later in 1970s. This was revealed both in the Green Paper Priorities for Health and Personal Social Services in England (Department of Health and Social Security, 1976) and the White Paper Priorities in the Health and Social Services: The Way Forward (Department of Health and Social Security, 1977)

The White Papers and the Green Paper are analysed to find out the influence of political ideology of the ‘Old Labour’ Government in 1960 and 1970s as they are directly written by the Government department for the implementation (or discussion) of a new set of policies. Even though one of the White Papers, Better Services for the Mentally Handicapped (Department of Health and Social Security, 1971) was not published by the Labour Government, it is included in the analysis because it is stated in the Foreword that ‘much of the groundwork for this Paper was don under the previous (Labour) Government’ (Department of Health and Social Security, 1971, p. ii) and it is, also, placed on the context of series of reform throughout 1960s and 1970s, as discussed. However, this difference of it with other Papers is carefully considered in the analysis.

The reports of the committees such as the Ingleby report or the Longford report are not included in the analysis although there was profound contribution for the development of personal social services. It is true that many recommendations of the reports has been legitimated but they are inappropriate for the purpose of the study which is to look at the influence of political ideology within government policy process – White and Green Papers as they are written by independent committees not by government. However, they are reviewed as a one of the contemporary literatures but considerable one in the study not only because they have had significant influence on the policy but also because they has been often one of the most comprehensive study on its area. It is, moreover, important point of the analysis to compare of the reports with the equivalent White or Green Paper, for example, The Ingleby report (1960) and The Child, the Family and the Young Offender (Home Office, 1965).

However, there is inevitable exception in the study of 1960s and 70s as there was, unfortunately, no Green or White Paper for the most profound development, the establishment of new unified social service department in the 1970 Local Authority Social Service Act. So some texts of the Seebohm report (1968) are included in the analysis particularly, in terms of their strategic choice as well as recognition of challenges and philosophy in the background of it. The differences and distance between what the report recommended and what actually government accepted are also carefully regarded in the analysis.

Challenges to the personal social services

Divided and ineffective structure of service provision

One of the most dominant problems of personal social services between contemporary literatures in 1960s and 70s was the complexity of the structure in service provision (Forder, 1975; Forder & Kay, 1973; Griffith, 1966; Hall, 1976; Harris, 1970; Holgate & Keidan, 1975; Titmuss, 1967; Townsend & Wedderburn, 1970; Wistrich, 1970). It was indicated that the responsibilities in personal social services areas has been divided not only in central government but also in local authorities. Within central government departments, by the early 1970s, the Ministry of Health was responsible for health and welfare services in local authorities while the Home Office had a similar responsibility for local authority children’s departments and the probation services. Department of Education, in addition, had particular concern with health and welfare in schools. In local government, before a new unified social service department was set up, the function of personal social services had been divided mainly into children’s and welfare department, and related with health, education, and housing department. Poor coordination and even rivalries between these departments both in central and local level appeared as a major concern in personal social services.

This was mainly because the division of services and lack of coordination between them were recognised as a core barrier to make social services difficult to meet growing social need appropriately. As social service function was divided not by client group who needed the services but by professional groups or administrative department who had a particular skills and knowledge or power for particular part of services, it was seen to be impossible to provide holistic approach for individuals or families who usually had multiple and interdependent needs (Forder, 1975; Griffith, 1966; Hall, 1976; Harris, 1970; Holgate & Keidan, 1975; Townsend & Wedderburn, 1970; Wistrich, 1970). Furthermore, Titmuss (1967) argued that as social work skills were fragmented into too many small department and statutory functions, this not only led ineffective use of trained staff but also a lack of adequate professional career opportunities.

Many explained this complex and fragmented structure had developed through development of personal social services: different legislation for different function had been enacted and new institution for implementation of them was set each time (Forder, 1975; Hall, 1976; Harris, 1970). However, Forder (1975) argued that there had been interest of each professionals behind such as medial social worker, probation officers, and welfare officers in children’s departments as theses professionals could had enjoyed more autonomy and influence on their service area of service in the segmentation of the services. Also it was true when integration of personal social services was considered, there was considerable opposition insisting this could damage professional development. This is discussed further in strategy section below.

Growing social needs

Another great concern in many commentators in 1960s and 70s was rapid growth of social needs in the contemporary society due to demographic change toward aging society (Eyden, 1973; Hall, 1976; Parker, 1970; Seebohm Committee, 1968; Speed, 1974; Titmuss, 1963); the increase in the number of mother who were working (Holgate & Keidan, 1975; Parker, 1970; Titmuss, 1963); and change of household structure, growing number of household living alone in particular (Holgate & Keidan, 1975)

Demographic change was recognised as more fundamental matter as it would lead an increasingly adverse balance the dependent to the independent in the population. This mean there would be more and more needs for care while less and less resources. Parker (1970), for instance, demonstrated that the number of the elderly over 75 would grow twice (35 per cent) as fast as the whole population (17 per cent) in the next two decades while Seebohm Committee (1968) recognised that the elderly over 65 represented approximately one in eight of the population and about a third of them are 75 or more.

More working mother with young children entails the increase in demands of childcare as well as the decrease in supply of informal carer. Holgate & Keidan (1975) pointed out there was nearly 5 million married women who were working and 1 million of them who had children under five. Also they indicated the rise in number of more vulnerable household such as lone parents family which reached one in ten of all family and single household particularly between elderly which had more than doubled in the past two decades. In addition, growing conviction rate in young people which had been more than two times that of two decades ago still attracted great attention in personal social services following 1950s (Ingleby Committee, 1960).

Shortage of resources

The more the increase in social care needs became apparent, the more the shortage of resources was seen acute in the contemporary literatures in 1960s and 70s (Eyden, 1973; Griffith, 1966; Holgate & Keidan, 1975; Marshall, 1965; Parker, 1970; Political and Economic Planning, 1961; Seebohm Committee, 1968; Titmuss, 1967; Townsend & Wedderburn, 1970). Various evidences showing how the provision of services far shorter than required were presented by the studies in services for children, elderly, and other domiciliary services. For example, Parkman and Power who were asked to investigate the level of children’s needs and service provision by Seebohm Committee (1968) concluded that at least one child in ten would need special help whereas at most one child in twenty-two is receiving such help. Townsend & Wedderburn (1970) found in their survey of elderly 65 or over that while many old people depended on services by local authority such as home help and meals on wheels the numbers of people who actually needed those services were twice to five times as many as that of people who are receiving them.

The shortage of resources was not limited with the amount of service provision. Lack of staff, was also seen serious. Griffith (1966) pointed out that 12 per cent of posts for childcare officer were vacant in 1964 and they were suffering because of a lower status than other chief officers with small proportion of expenditure. And Parker (1970), furthermore, indicated the shortage of staff in the field of residential care who were usually filled by older single women before they started to decline by the growth of other employment opportunities for them.

Challenges recognised in policy documents

The appreciation of different challenges personal social services face in the contemporary society tends to have different ideological implication. This is because the general direction of the policy highly depends on how the challenges personal social services need to tackle are defined. It would be difficult divided a number of studies discussed above into different ideological position because most of them appreciate all three aspect of challenges in their studies. This means there was general consensus among the commentators that more personal social services should be provided to meet growing social needs with more cooperation between different services.

However, what challenges was more emphasized among others may have different implication. For example commentators who more focus on significant shortage of resources might have more interventionist stand than other as this would be used as an evidence to argue more extension of expenditure in personal social services. On the other hand, structural problem of service delivery more likely to be used for the augment saying more effective use of resources rather than the expansion of them. Yet this should not be simple judgement at all as the discussion on structural reform appeared in this period embraced much wider argument than simply effective use of existing resources. But it is also true this categorisation could be good reference to look at ideological implication in certain policy document.

In this context, it is interesting that the shortage of service provision is far dominantly appears among any other challenges in Green Papers and White Papers particularly in 1970s. Such comments are found in every service areas: ‘only a small star has been made towards providing in sufficient quantity training centres for mentally handicapped’ (para. 55), ‘lack of places (in junior training centres)’ (para. 59), ‘more places (in adult training centres) are still needed’ (para. 64), ‘the increases (in places for young people who leave junior training centre) is still barely sufficient’ (para. 65), ‘no arrangements of this sort [residential accommodation]’ (para. 68), ‘facilities for residential care outside hospital are still nil or minimal’ (para. 72), and ‘Shortage of staff, particularly trained staff’ (para. 75) in Better Services for the Mentally Handicapped (Department of Health and Social Security, 1971); ‘Staffing levels are often less than adequate’ (para. 4), ‘the non-hospital community resources are still minimal …’ (para. 2.8), ‘lack of facilities (for alcoholics) would be even more serious’ (para. 8.12), and ‘mental hospital are still considerably overcrowded’ (para. 11.1) in Better Services for the Mentally Ill (Department of Health and Social Security, 1975); and ‘ services (for elderly) at present fall short of them suggests a serious need for improvement’ (para. 5.9), ‘Inadequate domiciliary services causes misuse of hospital beds and unnecessary demand for residential places.’ (para. 5.10), ‘The most serious deficiencies in existing services for the mentally ill are in the local authority social services’ (para. 8.11), ‘Local authority (day care for pre-school children) facilities are concentrated on those who have priority need, and they have long waiting list’ (para. 9.16), and ‘there is substantial unmet need for residential care (for young offenders). … there are serious shortages of specialised accommodation’ (para. 9.19) in Priorities for Health and Personal Social Services in England (Department of Health and Social Security, 1976)

This would be more interesting this dominant appreciation of shortage of resources appeared when the Britain was suffering from one of the worst crisis in her history as discussed in the Introduction. Moreover, different from the contemporary literatures, this situation are clearly stated in the White and Green Papers from 1975 and the severe constraint in personal social services by this circumstance was also apparently recognised: ‘In present economic circumstances there is clearly little or no scope for substantial additional expenditure on health and personal social services, at least for the next few years.’ (Department of Health and Social Security, 1975 para. 8), ‘services have also been severely affected … by restraints on the financial resources available’ (Department of Health and Social Security, 1975 para 11.3), ‘the growth of public expenditure must be severely restrained’ (Department of Health and Social Security, 1976 Foreword), ‘for some years at any rate public expenditure will need to be constrained in the national economic interest.’ (Department of Health and Social Security, 1976 para. 1.10), and ‘the recent rapid growth in overall staff numbers cannot continue.’ (Department of Health and Social Security, 1976 para. 2.1).

However, it also appears clear that the constraint was inevitable out of the choice of the Government even though they did not want it. They even showed their intention of further expansion of personal social services as long as economic circumstance would allow. More needs of families and communities by economic pressure were also appriciated: ‘If the economic situation improved and there were – say – a rate of annual growth in real terms resources after 1980 about double the rate that there will be for the rest of this decade, there would be scope for progress in most of the priority areas’ (Department of Health and Social Security, 1976 para. 11.9), ‘we cannot hop to make significant and rapid changes in the desired directions without a more rapid growth of resources.’ (Department of Health and Social Security, 1977, p. vii), and ‘economic circumstances add to the pressures on families and communities for whom the health and social services must provide support and help’ (Department of Health and Social Security, 1977 para. 1.15). In addition, growing social needs were also recognised, particularly by demographic change (Department of Health and Social Security, 1976, p. 38, para. 1.6, 1.7, 9.2 and 11.4; , 1977, p.?)

Surprisingly, structural problem of service provision was hardly mentioned in the White and Green Papers in 1960s and 70s contrary to the dominance in the contemporary literatures. However, this must be taken into account that this was not because the Government did not recognised this issue seriously, in fact it was the opposite, but because there was certain context relating to the publication of White and Green Papers. As mentioned in the Introduction, there was no White or Green Paper for the most significant reform in the structure of personal social services in 1960s and 70s: the establishment of the unified social service department. Moreover two White Papers (Home Office, 1965, , 1968) published before the reform was about services for children which was the area already having their own ‘unified’ organisation, ‘children’s department’ by the 1948 Children Act and the rest of White and Green Papers were published after the reform. The terms of reference for the Seebohm Committee (1968) actually came from the words in the Child, the Family and the Young Offender (Home Office, 1965 para. 7): ‘to review the organisation and responsibilities of local authority personal social service in England and Wales, and to consider what changes are desirable to secure an effective family service’. And the Committee did well aware of relevant issue around this:

Organisational issues are of crucial importance when considering the effects of divided responsibility upon policy, use of resources, public accessibility, accountability and co-ordination. The more fragmented the responsibility for the provision of personal social services the more pronounced these problems become. At the policy level difficulty arises over the co-ordination of the work of different but interdependent departments. The setting of priorities and the planning of future developments tends to take palace without sufficient regard to the implementations for other departments concerned with similar problems and providing partially alternative or supporting services. … (Seebohm Committee, 1968 para. 98)

Objectives of personal social services

Statement of objective in any policy area might be one of the most straightforward components showing the ideological stance. This is also true even in personal social services. The most ideologically apparent approach appeared in so called ‘radical social work’ in 1970s (Cannan, 1975; Case Con, 1970; Leonard, 1975). Services in the welfare state was accused of means to help providing a more efficient workforce and military and to be used as a threat of withdrawal of benefits under certain condition, such as strike for social control (Case Con, 1970). So the radical social workers argued that the real aim of social work should be a change in the economic base of their client (Statham, 1978).

The other end of ideological position in 1970s is found in the approach seeing personal social service as a measures to lift casualties in modern society up to ‘normal life’. In other words, objective of personal social service is to help individuals having difficulties under certain conditions or families with them, such as children in trouble, failed elderly, disabled people to live as ‘normal’ as possible (Eyden, 1973; Marshall, 1965; Parker, 1970; Seebohm Committee, 1968). As it is assumed a certain ‘norm’ of society and aim to keep it, the objective in this approach might be summarised into one phrase, ‘social control’ as the radicals criticized. However, there is different context as this is more passive form of social control which is more about preventing society from unacceptable disaster rather than active form of it which is like a means of threat or prevention from radical social change as radicals accused.

There could be spectrum within this perspective. Position emphasising solely on rescue of social casualties in industrial society might be placed more close to the end of opposition to radicalism. On the other hand, commentators who argued more active role of personal social service for more preventive and promotional approach to improve individuals or family’s quality of life (Parker, 1970; Political and Economic Planning, 1961) could be placed more close to the middle. And the argument that the role of personal social services as one of the means of the income distribution (Marshall, 1970) might be positioned more to the left.

The objective of personal social service policy in White and Green Papers in 1960s and 70s are found to be more close to ‘social control’. There was prime emphasis that personal social services were mainly to help people keep normal life in their community as long as possible in every area. For example, services for young offenders was to ‘make him into a law-abiding and useful citizen’ (Home Office, 1965 para. ?) and protect society from juvenile delinquency (Home Office, 1968 para. 7). The aim of services for mentally or physically disabled people and their family was to help them to maintain a normal social life or nearly normal a life as much as possible (Department of Health and Social Security, 1971 para. 40; , 1976, pp. 45, 54 para. 8.2). Likewise, services for the elderly was to maintain independent lives in their own homes or their community for as long as possible (Department of Health and Social Security, 1976, p. 38 para. 1.2 and 5.3). In children’s services, it was ‘to help families provide a satisfactory home for the child, and to enable children to stay with their families except where it is against the children’s interests.’ (Department of Health and Social Security, 1976 para. 9.11)

Philosophy under the policy

Philosophical ground under the discussion in 1960s and 70s on personal social services had been influenced from three different theories. The first one was the psycho-analytic approach came from Freudian psychology developed since the early twenty century (Bailey & Brake, 1975; Forder & Kay, 1973; Heywood, 1973). This primarily focused on individualistic aspect of the problem addressed in personal social services so there was increasing interest in the contribution of sociology explaining wider environmental influence on the issues (Forder & Kay, 1973; Hall, 1976; Heywood, 1973). Finally, although it mostly appeared out of formal social work education and academic circle, there was considerable discussion on radical social work influenced by Marxism and it affected various movements with the claimants’ unions, the tenants’ association, the Mental Patients Union, the Women’s Liberation Movement and the Gay Liberation Front (Bailey & Brake, 1975; Statham, 1978).

Needs for social care are understand to be driven by individual failure in psycho-analytic perspective and quasi-medical model of intervention, such as casework, is preferred to any other form of services (Bailey & Brake, 1975; Heywood, 1973). Client are usually defined as a malfunctioning personality in this approach (Cannan, 1975). For example, Philp (1963) claimed in his study on 129 ‘problem families’ that ‘emotional immaturity’ was found in the most of his cases as a condition of their problems and the emotional immaturity is, he explained, a result of unsatisfactory childhood experiences. He did not denied general social services but argued that these services could achieve little because they just dealt with only ‘symptom’ of problem so the services should be supplemented by casework to tackle underlying difficulties.

On the other hand, in radical social work (Case Con, 1970), the problems of clients is claimed to be rooted in the capitalism society which based on private ownership and interest of minority ruling class instead of vast majority working class and fundamental cases of social problem would endure unless workers’ state did not come. Traditional social work basing on psycho-analytic theories and practice was criticised as a model of individual and family pathology ignoring socio-economic environment (Cannan, 1975; Leonard, 1975). More importantly, original social work value such as self-determination and dignity of client was understood to be unable to be achieved in capitalist system (Leonard, 1975). Therefore it is argued that the role of social workers was to encourage recognition of client about oppressive economic and political structure, and help to increase the control by them over the structure (Bailey & Brake, 1975; Leonard, 1975).

Even though many did not agreed this radicals’ claim, there was general acceptance that the failures of socio-economic structure - at least, wider environment – were behind social problem in contemporary commentators (Heywood, 1973; Hunt, 1974; Ingleby Committee, 1960; Seebohm Committee, 1968; Statham, 1978; Titmuss, 1963)., Titmuss (1963), for instance, explained growing social needs with the increase in uncertainty of industrialising society by unemployment, technological advance, and cultural change and Ingleby Committee (1960) even argued that it is rather surprising to see so few young people got into real trouble and so few families broke down under the growing insecurity in the society. Similar approaches were generally found in White and Green Papers in 1960s and 70s, even on mental health issues which is the area most likely to be influenced by quasi-medical model in personal social services while the psycho-analytic approach was partly accepted:

A child’s behaviour is influenced by genetic, emotional and intellectual factors, his maturity, and his family, school, neighbourhood and wider social setting. (Home Office, 1968 para. 6)

Action by society to deal with children in trouble should take account of each child’s family and wider social background… (Home Office, 1968 para. 49)

A child’s capacity to learn and develop may be restricted through social deprivation. (Department of Health and Social Security, 1971 para. 11)

There is growing recognition of the relationship between behaviour and environment; and indeed there are probably few aspects of public and private activity that have not been held to have some effect whether direct or indirect on our psychological well-being. (Department of Health and Social Security, 1975 para. 1.1)

Changes in the nature of the problems for which individuals consider they need psychiatric help imperceptibly change society’s general concept of what is mental illness and what is not; how far behaviour can be regarded as eccentricity and a reflection of individual personality; how far behaviour calls for punishment and how far for treatment. But we should beware of overemphasising this, particularly in the context of current psychiatric practice in this country (Department of Health and Social Security, 1975 para. 1.2).

There is no hard evidence to confirm that the incidence of mental illness is increasing but undoubtedly there are features of modern industrial society which many people feel make them more vulnerable to mental stress: high rise flats for families with young children; production line work with no fob satisfaction; the break-up of the large family unit; overcrowded living conditions; the pressures of advertising with its suggestions of ‘norms’ of happiness, friendship and sexual satisfaction and the consequent feelings of inadequacy among those who have not achieved them. (Department of Health and Social Security, 1975 para. 1.5)

Reference has been made already to the wide range of social and environmental conditions which may increase vulnerability to mental illness. The precise weight to be attached to them can rarely be established: poverty, unemployment, lack of job satisfaction and poor working conditions, bad housing, are themselves often a cause of marital stress and breakdown in family life (Department of Health and Social Security, 1975 para. 1.17).

Family factors play a key role; sometimes these are themselves the result of poor environmental conditions but this is not always so. Further research is required into which family factors are most significant and how best to deal with them. Recent studies have already identified some: these include severe social disadvantage, family discord, poor child rearing practices, parental mental disturbance, parental criminality, one-parent families, large family size, unwanted pregnancy, and placement of the child in residential institutions (Department of Health and Social Security, 1975 para. 7.4).

Actors and providers of services

It was true that there had been an argument, often in one phrase, ‘mixed economy of welfare’ saying social services such as health, education, and other services should be provided not only by public but also by private sector since 1960s. However, there was general assumption that public sector (usually local government) had the prime responsibility to fulfil their duty to provide adequate level of social care imposed by a range of legislation enacted from the late 1940s to 1960s among the most of literatures in 1960s and 70s on personal social services. The (local) Government was widely regarded as a public body have duty as well as accountability to their electorate about their social needs (Eyden, 1973; Forder, 1975; Ingleby Committee, 1960; Marshall, 1970; Seebohm Committee, 1968) apart from radicals condemnation on state representing the interests of the ruling class (Cannan, 1975; Case Con, 1970).

There were also suggestions that role of local government (or statutory body) should not be limited in only provision of services. Seebohm Committee (1968 para. 478) claimed that local government (the social service department) need to see themselves as part of a network within the community. In other word, they should have more inactive role such as mobilisation of community resources including provision of support and opportunity to voluntary sector, and management of coordination between various organisations, also including volunteers. Even Titmuss (1967) proposed cooperative ‘enabler’ as a new role required for social service professionals.

This reflected wide range of appreciation about role of voluntary sector which already made great contribution to personal social services (Griffith, 1966; Holgate & Keidan, 1975; Ingleby Committee, 1960; Parker, 1970; Seebohm Committee, 1968; Wistrich, 1970). Parker (1970) indicated that some care services had developed from various forms of voluntary effort and others (Holgate & Keidan, 1975; Seebohm Committee, 1968) demonstrated this still happened through pioneering role of volunteer organisations in services in new area statutory bodies did not attempt. Their role was also valued as they shared rapid growth demand otherwise local authorities would be overwhelmed (Seebohm Committee, 1968). Moreover they were regarded as a key to realise other values in social services such as more practical democracy by their participation (Holgate & Keidan, 1975; Seebohm Committee, 1968; Wistrich, 1970) and wider choice by various provision of their services (Seebohm Committee, 1968).

However, their participation was not always considered positively. While Seebohm Committee (1968) valued wider role of voluntary organisation, they clarified that they could not replace professional statutory sector (para. 499) also warned that their growing involvement should not result in lower standard of services (para. 305) or loss of critical and pioneering role of voluntary sector (para. 495). Further, there was concern that this should not be the excuse of cheaper option or neglect of local authority’s responsibility (Holgate & Keidan, 1975; Seebohm Committee, 1968). In other words, role of voluntary sector was accepted only as a supplementary to that of statutory. The role of for-profit sectors was far less recognised. They were hardly mentioned in most of literatures and even if mentioned, the role was considered rather exceptional (Holgate & Keidan, 1975).

It is obvious that prime role of the state is basically assumed as a service provider in White and Green Papers as a Government’s policy document. However, there were also wide range of appreciation of the role of voluntary sector in terms of their contribution in contemporary services (Department of Health and Social Security, 1975 para. 1.20; , 1976para. 6.2; Home Office, 1965 para. 44; , 1968 para. 8, 40, 278, and 279). They were praised sometimes because of their freely-motivated spirit (Department of Health and Social Security, 1971 para. 277; , 1975 para. 3.29) or their constructive criticism (Department of Health and Social Security, 1971 para. 282) but more often because of their pioneering role in services development statutory bodies difficult to fulfil (Department of Health and Social Security, 1971 para. 281; , 1975 para 3.32, 3.36, and 3.37) while for-profit sectors were hardly mentioned. Therefore suggestions of more active role of local government such as mobilising and encouraging more involvement of voluntary services were often found in them:

The Government attaches great importance to the further development of partnership between public and voluntary bodies in meeting these needs, and the public system will therefore include both local authority and voluntary homes (Home Office, 1968 para. 31).

…also local authorities’ social service departments may need to give a lead in identifying needs and suggesting to volunteers how their particular interests and skills can be most effective (Department of Health and Social Security, 1971 para. 306).

It is the concern of the social services department to see that all services are mobilised in helping the mentally ill and in supporting their families (Department of Health and Social Security, 1975 para. 3.15).

As well as involving voluntary organisations in the planning of their services, local and health authorities have statutory powers to give them direct support both financially and by making facilities available, and the Government hopes that this means of encouraging voluntary effort will be used as fully as resources permit (Department of Health and Social Security, 1975 para. 3.39).

Health and local authorities should give every support to voluntary bodies in their work of harnessing community effort (Department of Health and Social Security, 1976 para. 1.23).

However, there were some concern about over-use of them which could make them lose their voluntary spirit (Department of Health and Social Security, 1971 para. 306) and recommendation that their role should be limited as complementary because they were not professionally trained and should not be means of filling deficiencies in the statutory services (Department of Health and Social Security, 1975 para. 3.31). Yet local government was encouraged more inactive use of voluntary organisations and this seems to be regarded as additional resources they needed to use under financial constraint:

Leaving aside the special problems of cruelty and neglect, the situation seems to demand such strategies as:

using ancillary and voluntary workers to economise on scarce professional resources;
making maximum use of community resources such as foster parents, child minders and the often forgotten aunts and grandmothers…;
making maximum use of voluntary and community organisations, …
developing new resources such as day centres and intermediate treatment centres which can make full use of staff who are not attracted to professional training in the caring professions;
exploring the use of the media to supplement professional work, for example by providing advice to mothers, finding foster parents or helping to raise standards of child minding.

(Department of Health and Social Security, 1976 para. 9.30)

… support for voluntary effort and encouragement of self-help schemes may represent better value for money than directly provided services and may also provide the means of continuing preventive work. By their diversity and the ingenuity they bring to the task, voluntary organisations can be an important adjunct to the authority’s own direct services in getting help to people in need (Department of Health and Social Security, 1976 para. 10.4).

Voluntary effort provides a much needed addition to total resources (Department of Health and Social Security, 1977 para. 2.11).

Citizenship in personal social services

Citizenship in personal social services was not popular issue among academics in 1960s and 70s. This is partly because the primarily acceptance by the state of a full responsibility for the determination of social services after the Beverage Report was sill widely assumed during the period. So when this is discussed, it is rather about how to protect citizen’s right against growing dominant power of statutory authority in social care (Brooke, 1970; Statham, 1978; Wistrich, 1970) and advocacy of client’s interest or participation of them for more responsive decision-making to fulfil their needs (or right) more properly (Forder & Kay, 1973; Seebohm Committee, 1968)

More sophisticated discussion on citizenship on social care appeared in Ingleby (1960) and Seebohm Report (1968) around the debate on caring responsibility of parents on their children and of family on the elderly. They never denied primary responsibility for caring their own family member: ‘The primary responsibility for bringing up children is parental …’ (Ingleby Committee, 1960 para. 8) and ‘The care which a family gives to its older members is of prime importance and nothing is quite an adequate substitute.’ (Seebohm Committee, 1968 para. 294). However, they made it clear that the duty to assist the family in order for them to fulfil the responsibility was on the state: ‘the State’s principal duty is to assist the family in carrying out its proper functions’ (Ingleby Committee, 1960 para. 12), and ‘… the social services and the social service department in particular, should make every effort to support and assist the family which is caring for an older member.’ (Seebohm Committee, 1968 para. 294).

In White and Green Papers on personal social services in 1960s and 70s, there was general acceptance of the basic duty of statutory authority to provide services to meet citizen’s right. Further there was more understanding on families how difficult to carry their caring responsibility by themselves, in order words, the duty of the state to support them:

The basic duty of local authorities towards children in their care will remain that of providing the care, protection, guidance or treatment which they consider appropriate in the interests of each child (Home Office, 1968 para. 30).

A family with a handicapped member has the same needs for general social services as all other families. The family and the handicapped child or adult also need special additional help (Department of Health and Social Security, 1971 para. 40)

Some families may be able-and indeed wish-to undertake the demanding task of care. But in these cases it is essential that they receive support and advice from professional staff and that services should be organised to give them effective relief: to enable them to go on holiday and to cope with more urgent domestic crises which may make continued care impractical from time to time, or simply to allow them some respite from the sheer physical and emotional strain (Department of Health and Social Security, 1975 para 1.28).

Furthermore, there were more attempts to guarantee more protection of client’s right such as encouragement of discussion between professionals and clients (or his/her family), and emphasis on more participation in decision-making:

The individual and his family … should be encouraged wherever possible to discuss with the professional staff involved the various needs and the way in which these might be met (Department of Health and Social Security, 1975 para. 1.32).

While the choice of treatment is a matter for professional judgment, the patient and his family have to find the choice acceptable. (Department of Health and Social Security, 1975 para. 2.7)

The statutory services, no matter how comprehensively they are planned, cannot by themselves provide a complete answer to the needs of mentally ill people. The general aim of enabling the mentally ill to participate as fully as possible in the life of the community will only be achieved if other members of the community recognise and support it (Department of Health and Social Security, 1975 para. 2.24).

Relatives of this important group of mentally ill people have now formed their own organisation which is seeking to identify the particular difficulties experienced and ways of helping the families to manage, and to bring these to the notice of statutory authorities. This development is very much welcomed by the Government. A great deal can be learnt from the experiences of families about ways in which services can be make more responsive to individual needs, and their voice needs to be listened to when policies and priorities are being determined. (Department of Health and Social Security, 1975 para. 3.40)

However, interestingly, different kind of comment was found the White Paper in the late 1970s when the economic crisis far deepened:

One of the main aims of the new initiative on prevention is to encourage individual members of the public to accept greater responsibility for their own health (Department of Health and Social Security, 1977 para. 2.1)

Strategic directions of the policy

Coordination versus integration

As far as strategy in personal social services policy is concerned, the most significant strategic choice of the Government was the setting of free-standing unified social service department in local authority. However, there is no White or Green Paper for this change but we can see Seebohm Report (1968) which recommended the unified department. It was true that there was some differences between the 1970 Local Authority Social Service Act and the Report for example, takeover of welfare functions of education and housing department in local authority was excluded. However, as the core idea of the proposal, the unified social service department was accepted, we can find ideological implication of the choice through the text in the Seebohm Report including their argument for the proposal.

Since the structural complexity and inefficiency were widely recognised in 1960s and 70s as we saw above in Challenges to personal social services section, there were a range of a range of discussion on how to improve coordination or integration of various service provisions (Brown, 1974; Forder, 1975; Ingleby Committee, 1960; Marshall, 1965, , 1970; Titmuss, 1967; Wistrich, 1970). One of the alternatives was coordination through joint committee with representative from various different social service committees or a new appointment of designated officer who was responsible for the cooperation between them. Marshall (1965), for instance, claimed that complete administrative integration would be hardly possible because the responsibility of services for various clients such as abused children, homeless, lone parents, and disabled people were profoundly different as regarded the special knowledge they called for. So he suggested social workers should work as a team with designated leader while remained in deferent organisations. The other one was the integration of all relevant services into the new unified social service department. Titmuss (1967) suggested that the establishment of departments of social service at the local level embracing all the functions of existing children’s departments and welfare departments, and mental health services from health department.

The argument for the coordination with separated department tended to base on specialist claim which was closed to psycho-analytic approach as this is from the concern the administrative integration of social services might damage specialist’s skill and knowledge well developed in separated organisation divided by specified area (Brown, 1974) . Underlying problems relating to personality and relation issues, which specialist treatment such as casework was required to address, was regarded more important than general human need relating to social and economic circumstance in this claim. On the other hand, in the recommendation of the unified social service department, this specialist social service was not considered as a appropriate direction of personal social services and more comprehensive human need was prioritised. This strategic difference in the recommendation of the Seebohm proposal was apparent in the text:

Although significant progress has been made in the past as a result of introducing separate administrative arrangements for assisting particular groups in need, we do not regard this necessarily as a permanent blueprint for future development. In different periods of development other approaches may be more appropriate. At this point in time we consider that most progress in providing good personal services will come through greater integration. (Seebohm Committee, 1968 para. 166)

There was considerable agreement that the barriers between different kinds of training and specialisation should be lowered. … (Seebohm Committee, 1968 para. 510)

… we consider that a family or individual in need of social care should, as far as is possible, be served by a single social worker. In support of this proposition it can be argued that the basic aim of a social service department is to attempt to meet all the social needs of the family or individual together and as a whole. The new department, by escaping from the rigid classifications implied in the present symptom-centred approach, will provide a more effective “family” service. … (Seebohm Committee, 1968 para. 516)

Unified department as a panacea

The proposal of the unified social service department was not only about comprehensive social service to tackle the structural problem of service provision. This was also regarded as a solution for the shortage of resource in social service against growing social need. Seebohm Committee (1968 para. 147-150) clearly expected that the unified department would increase the recruitment and training (in-service training more feasible), deploy them better, have better career structure, secure bigger budget due to comprehensive responsibility as a major committee and attract more need by better accessibility hitherto gone unrecognised or unmet. In order word, the establishment of the unified department would not only make existing resources use more effectively but also become a ground to attract more resources.

This argumentation was widely agreed by other commentators. The new integrated social service was expected to could secure bigger budget by creating new balance of power among other big spending local government departments, having more influential status on policy decision, and attract more public demand through raising public awareness, reducing stigmatisation of users, and detecting more needs effectively (Brown, 1974; Cypher, 1979; Kahan, 1974; Parker, 1970; Wistrich, 1970). Furthermore the new department was presumed to attract more high quality workforces by widening career opportunities with better career structure as well as making social work recognised as a professional discipline with higher statues and authority (Harris, 1970; Wistrich, 1970).

Expansion and rational planning of social service

With recognition of rapidly growing social needs and deficiency of resources in personal social services, not surprisingly, one of the major stresses in policy of White and Green Papers was the expansion of social service provision. After, even in first two White Papers in policy for juvenile delinquency, welfare of children was put in the first priority (Home Office, 1965 para 42; , 1968 para. 14), a range of emphasis and commitments for expansion of social services followed:

In order to achieve this aim, it is necessary to develop further our facilities for observation and assessment, and to increase the variety of facilities for continuing treatment, both residential and non-residential. … (Home Office, 1968 para. 20)

The family will also need practical assistance of many kinds. This may include home help, domiciliary nursing, laundry service for the incontinent, sitters-in, play centre, day nursery, nursery school, youth club, and temporary residential care for the handicapped person during emergencies or holidays. … (Department of Health and Social Security, 1971 para. 143)

What is needed is faster progress to overcome the present deficiencies. This will require money and more trained staff. (Department of Health and Social Security, 1971 para. 198)

The services in which the greatest expansion is needed are adult training centres or sheltered workshops, residential homes for children and residential homes for adults. (Department of Health and Social Security, 1971 para. 201)

In the four years 1971-72 to 1974-75, these resources and local authorities present plans should allow building starts for nearly 10,000 new places in adult training centres, 750 new places in homes for children and 3,500 new places in homes for adults. New buildings would increase revenue costs during this period by an average of something under ₤2 million each year over the previous year at 1970 prices. This is slightly higher than the present annual increase which is likely in 1971-72 to exceed ₤1.5 million for the first time. The annual increase would rise progressively during the four-year period (Department of Health and Social Security, 1971 para. 207).

… the Government’s broad policy objectives … is an expansion of local authority personal social services to provide residential, domiciliary, day care and social work support (Department of Health and Social Security, 1975 para. 2.22).

After economic constraint was seriously considered in the late 1970s, the commitment of the expansion, while limited, did not stop in the Papers (Department of Health and Social Security, 1976, , 1977). Rather it was placed as a major strategy. This includes increase in general expenditure (Department of Health and Social Security, 1976, p. 54 para. 4, 5, 1.12, 1.15, 1.18, 5.12, 10.8, and 10.9), expansion of a number of facilities (Department of Health and Social Security, 1976, pp. 38, 62 para. 6.8, 6.9, 6.10, 7.10, 7.13, 8.12, 8.13, 9.26, and 9.27; , 1977 para. 1.15), development of various services (Department of Health and Social Security, 1976, p. 45 para. 5.11, 5.13, 6.11, 6.12, and 7.2; , 1977 para. 1.14, 2.18), improvement of quality of existing services (Department of Health and Social Security, 1976 para. 7.14, 7.15, and 8.16), and more training and recruitment of social service staff (Department of Health and Social Security, 1976 para. 10.5)

At the same time, more economic use of resources was encouraged, particularly, among staff and provision of services such as development of more economical methods of service provision (Department of Health and Social Security, 1976 para. 14, 1.20, and 8.14), better management (Department of Health and Social Security, 1976 para. 1.21, and 2.2; , 1977 para. 1.5), training focusing on efficiency of resource use (Department of Health and Social Security, 1976 para. 2.5). However, the key was the rational planning. In fact, the purpose of the publication of the later two Papers (Department of Health and Social Security, 1976, , 1977) was ‘to provide the detailed information that will enable the right choices to be made and effective planning to be achieved’ (Department of Health and Social Security, 1976 Foreword) while the expenditure was severely limited. Also good planning was stated as a ‘key’ in social service policy (Department of Health and Social Security, 1977, p. 21)

Figure 1 ideological structure of personal social service policy in 1960s and 70s

Conclusion

While texts of White and Green Papers in 1960s and 70s are analysed, clear ideological implications if government in personal social services policy toward expansion of social care rights and service provision was found. The Government explicitly recognised the deficiency of resources in social services was the main challenges they had to tackle and there was clear duty of the state to support families with difficulties in order to carry on their normal life as much as possible. Under this recognition, there was fundamental understanding that people faced their unbearable difficulties because of environmental factors in society rather than individual fault. Therefore the Government accept their primary role to provide appropriate services to meet social needs while appreciate role of voluntary sector but limited as supplementary. The establishment of the new unified social service department was one of the results of this general understanding so there was intention not only to provide more effective service but also to strengthen status of social service among other public service area and attract more resources and workforces behind. Also expansion of service provision was still a major direction of policy until the late 1970s even though there was limitation due to the economic restraint. However, rational planning was considered as a solution for the limitation rather than any other measure implying reduction of services. This could be summarised as Figure 1

Therefore, although it was true that the most significant event in 1960s and 70s, the establishment of the new social service department was happened without explicit intension to invest more resource for it (Harris, 1970), it is hard to say that the fallowing massive expansion of social services (Bilton, 1979; Hall, 1976; Sullivan, 1996) was taken place against government intention. Rather this clear ideological implication within policy consideration reflected in the White and Green Papers provide more satisfactory explanation to the expansion of social service primarily in the public sector during the most significant economic crisis in Britain since the war than other structuralist argument. This also appears useful tool to understand more constraint in social services between continuously growing social needs under enduring economic restraint in Thatcher years in the next Chapter.

Bibliography

Bailey, R., & Brake, M. (1975). Introduction: social work in the welfare state. In R. Bailey & M. Brake (Eds.), Radical social work. London: Edward Arnold.

Bilton, K. (1979). Origins, progress and future. In J. Cypher (Ed.), Seebohm across three decades: social services departments past, present and future. Birmingham: BASW Publications.

Brooke, R. (1970). Civic rights and social services. In W. A. Robson & B. Crick (Eds.), The future of the social services. Middlesex: Penguin Books.

Brown, M. J. (Ed.). (1974). Social issues and the social services. London: Charles Knight & Co. Ltd.

Cannan, C. (1975). Welfare rights and wrongs. In R. Bailey & M. Brake (Eds.), Radical social work. London: Edward Arnold.

Case Con. (1970). Case Con manifesto. Retrieved 25.06, 2007, from http://www.radical.org.uk/barefoot/casecon.htm

Cooper, J. (1983). The creation of the British personal social services 1962-1974. London: Heinemann Educational Books.

Cypher, J. (Ed.). (1979). Seebohm across three decades: social service departments past, present and future. Birmingham: BASW Publications.

Department of Health and Social Security. (1971). Better services for the mentally handicapped. Cmnd. 4683. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

Department of Health and Social Security. (1975). Better services for the mentally ill. London: Her Majoesty's Stationery Office.

Department of Health and Social Security. (1976). Priorities for health and personal social services in England: a consultative document. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

Department of Health and Social Security. (1977). Priorities in the health and social services: the way forward - further discussion of the Government. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

Eyden, J. L. M. (1973). Elderly people. In M. H. Cooper (Ed.), Social policy: a survey of recent development. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Forder, A. (1975). Introduction. In J. Mays, A. Forder & O. Keidan (Eds.), Penelope Hall's social services of England and Wales (9th ed.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Forder, A., & Kay, S. (1973). Social work. In M. H. Cooper (Ed.), Social policy: a survey of recent development. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Griffith, J. A. G. (1966). Central departments and local authorities. London: George Allen & Unwin LTD.

Hall, P. (1976). Reforming the welfare: the politics of change in the personal social services. London: Heinemann.

Harris, J. (1970). Statutes: Local Authority Social Services Act 1970. The modern law review, 33(5), 530-534.

Heywood, J. S. (1973). Child care. In M. H. Cooper (Ed.), Social policy: a survey of recent development. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Holgate, E., & Keidan, O. (1975). The personal social services. In J. Mays, A. Forder & O. Keidan (Eds.), Penelope Hall's social services of England and Wales. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Home Office. (1965). The child, the family and the young offender. Cmnd. 2742. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

Home Office. (1968). Children in trouble. Cmnd. 3601 London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

Hunt, A. (1974). Delinquency and the social services department. In M. J. Brown (Ed.), Social issues and the social services. London: Charles Knight & Co. Ltd.

Ingleby Committee. (1960). Report of the committee on children and young persons. Cmnd. 1191. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

Kahan, B. (1974). The philosophy of the social services department. In M. J. Brown (Ed.), Social issues and the social services. London: Charles Knight & Co. Ltd.

Leonard, P. (1975). Towards a paradigm for radical practice. In R. Bailey & M. Brake (Eds.), Radical social work. London: Edward Arnold.

Lowe, R. (2005). The welfare state in Britain since 1945 (3rd ed.). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Marshall, T. H. (1965). Social welfare. In Social policy. London: Hutchinson University Library.

Marshall, T. H. (1970). The role of social services. In W. A. Robson & B. Crick (Eds.), The future of the social services. Middlesex: Penguin Books.

Parker, R. A. (1970). The future of the personal social services. In W. A. Robson & B. Crick (Eds.), The future of the social services. Middlesex: Penguin Books.

Philp, A. F. (1963). Family failure: a study of 129 families with multiple problems. London: Faber and Faber Limited.

Political and Economic Planning. (1961). Family needs and the social services. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.

Seebohm Committee. (1968). Report of the committee on local authority and allied personal social services. Cmnd. 3703. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

Speed, M. G. (1974). The aged and the social services department. In M. J. Brown (Ed.), Social issues and the social services. London: Charles Knight & Co. Ltd.

Statham, D. (1978). Redicals in social work. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Sullivan, M. (1996). Personal social services. In The development of the British welfare state: Prentice Hall/Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Titmuss, R. M. (1963). Essays on 'the welfare state' (2nd ed.). London: Unwin University Books.

Titmuss, R. M. (1967). The welfare complex in a changing society. The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, 45(1), 9-23.

Townsend, P., & Wedderburn, D. (1970). The aged in the welfare state: the interim report of a survey of persons aged 65 and over in Britain, 1962 and 1963 (3rd ed.). London: G. Bell & Sons Ltd.

Wistrich, E. (1970). The Seebohm Report. In W. A. Robson & B. Crick (Eds.), The future of the social services. Middlesex: Penguin Books.

1 Before the term, ‘personal social services’ was used in the Seebohm report (1968), ‘welfare services’ was the term widely used to indicate it.

chapter 5 Ideology and Policy Development of Personal Social Services

2007-11-13T16:55:00.000Z

Although personal social service has played viral part for more than 50 years, it has been one of the most under appreciated and neglected area of welfare state (Adams, 1996; Lowe, 2005). This might has been because it has been viewed as residual services caring the most vulnerable member of society. It is usually understood as a last resort services for extraordinary individual needs, for example handicapped, neglect, or abused children or adults rather than all (or most) of them like other policy area such as health and education (Hill, 2000). This has been the reason why personal social service has been relatively poorly understood within social policy areas (Adams, 1996). In central politics, additionally, personal social services had hardly been an issue in British general elections, at least until 1992 partly because this is mainly regarded local government matters (Baldock, 1994).

However, this would be no longer true. As the Government already admitted, in fact, ‘Social Services are for all of us. At any one time up to one and a half million people in England rely on their help. And all of us are likely at some point in our lives to need to turn to social services for support, whether on our own behalf or for a family member.’ (DH, 1998, para 1.1). As people lives longer while family breaks down, social needs for support to their daily lives becomes common in contemporary society (This is discussed more at the end the Chapter). Personal social service is more and more being appeared as a central issue of people’s lives and this obviously make it more central political issue.

These two contradictory features provide critical points of this study about role of political ideology on policy development. It might be more difficult to find out causal role of political ideology on policy development in other policy areas occupying central political agenda for long time because cause and effect relationship between political debate and policy change is always mixed up. Personal social service shows relatively clear timeline of policy development through government changes, as this has tended to be free from central political battle before relating problems or policy changes are evidently emerged.

Secondly, the more personal social service becomes important matters for most of people, the more it becomes crucial that how this policy could be developed in the future. Researching role of ideology on social services development will contribute vital part of this issue as this focus far more on changes comparing to other approaches such as institutionalism and structuralism.

This Chapter, as an introductory part of second half of the research, start with definition of personal social services. Competitive potential factors which can influence policy development of personal social services, such as needs and resources are discussed comparing to politics in social services. This follows outline of the development after the Second World War before influence of political ideology on each period of the development is examined from next chapter.

What is personal social service?

Since personal social service has been relatively neglected area in social policy, it also ill defined sector (Lowe, 2005). Its definition is particularly problematic as its area often overlaps those of health, crime (juvenile justice, in particular), and housing (Adams, 1996; Hill, 2000). So it is important to clarify what personal social service actually means in this research before further discussion in order to avoid any unnecessary confusion or uncertainty.

Adams (1996) provides useful tools to limit its meaning by literal words: ‘personal’, ‘social’, and ‘service’. It is ‘personal’ because personal social services deal with personal issues of lives when additional support requires rather than have a universal role for every one like health and education. Also it is personal because each contents of services vary depending personal situation from domiciliary support to residential care or mixed package of services. This indicate distinguishing point between health and social service because, for example, each patient having the same medical condition may need different package of social service depending on personal circumstance such as housing condition, available support from other family members, and level of income, while require the same healthcare treatment.

It is ‘social’ since it tackles particular individual needs because those needs have social dimension. Protecting vulnerable children against any form of abuse and neglect, caring elderly people no longer able to care themselves, and supporting disabled people to enjoy independent lives, all have personal form of needs but they can be developed as a social problem threatening stability of lives among general public if those needs are significantly unfulfilled. Moreover, personal social services address social inequality issues by focusing their effort on the most vulnerable members of society in particular.

Finally, it provides with various forms of ‘service’ or includes them as a major part of its provision. This features help distinguishing personal social service from other social security benefits – providing cash -, and even housing supplied with form of product.

However, it is true that many issues relating to definition of personal social service still are not very clear. The area between juvenile justice and social service is not clearly cut in particular. Yet this relates to different approach on juvenile justice issue rather than social services. In the approach more focusing on rehabilitation of young people, juvenile delinquency is more close to personal social service area while it would be more crime issue if punishment is a central concern of the policy.

This is the part of matters we need to discuss in this study. Personal social service cannot be defined adequately just within its own manner. This should include consideration of perspectives or context of policy development. So the domain of personal social service is limited depending on each government approaches in this study. This would be much clearer through outlining development of personal social services policy since the World War Two.

Policy development of personal social services

The origin of modern statutory services titled ‘personal social service’ usually does not go back further than publication of Seebohm Report in 1968 (Adams, 1996). However, not surprisingly, this form of services was not appeared one day. The emergence of the idea and legal foundation on social services provision is back to 1940s when the welfare state begun (Wanless, 2006).

Foundation period of personal social services in 1940s and 1950s

Even though there were significant legislations establishing legal foundation of personal social services in 1940s and 50s such as the 1948 National Assistance Act, Children Act and the 1959 Mental Health Act, many argues this was barren period for the development (Lowe, 2005; Sullivan, 1996). This is based on the fact that the concept of personal social service as a unitary policy area was not formed yet. At the central government services for children was oversaw by Home Office and those to the elderly, the sick and the disabled by Ministry of Health (Sullivan, 1996). This was even more complex in the local authorities. Responsibility of the services was usually divided between committees of health, welfare, education, and housing (Lowe, 2005; Sullivan, 1996).

Alongside administrational complexity, lack of professional identity in social workers contributed poorly defined social service area. Perceptions basing on Poor Law and Victorian values against vulnerable members of society were still dominant between not only general public and politics but also workers in social services (Adams, 1996). So often the staff tended to adopt judgemental attitude and assumption that needs addressed in social services should be met by self-help or support from family or relatives rather than public provision (Lowe, 2005). Furthermore, there was of an agreed body of theoretical knowledge and criteria as an independent academic discipline for social services (Adams, 1996; Lowe, 2005). So staff was initially recruited from a various range of sources such as private charities and hospitals and each disputed with the others in constant (Lowe, 2005).

The reality that there was not enough resources even to fulfil the requirement of services defined in the 1948 Children Act (Adams, 1996) is also one of the reason this period often regarded as a neglected period of the social services. After the 1948 National Assistance Act was implemented, many elderly people were still living in accommodations inherited from the Poor Law like former work houses until 1950s (Lowe, 2005) and other domiciliary care such as meals on wheels was largely left to voluntary organisation (Means & Smith, 1994) . Moreover, social rights to receive care was less clear cut for the elderly and disabled people (Salter, 1994).

However, it is also true that legislations passed during this period established vital legal ground and basic responsibilities of local government for further development of modern personal social service. It was important transitional period moving away from Poor Law regime of social services limited with a range of custodial institutions (Hill, 2000) to general consensus on preference of ‘community care’ which meant care outside residential setting and in their own homes (Wanless, 2006).

This begun with the 1946 National Health Service Act. Local authorities had legal basis to provide care and aftercare to people suffering from illness and services to prevent health problem by the Act (Salter, 1994). Also this Act made obligatory for local governments to provide services to pregnant women and their child under 6 (Baugh, 1987). The responsibility of local government for provision of social services was set out in broader terms through the 1948 National Assistance Act (Wanless, 2006). The Act gave local authorities the duty to provide welfare services for substantially disabled people and residential care for elderly people who had no alternatives available for them (Salter, 1994).

The 1948 Children Act was pioneering and revolutionary legislation at that time for development of social service for child in particular (Lowe, 2005). It mainly based on the report of the Interdepartmental Committee on the Care of Children (Curtis Report) in1946 following the inquiry on tragic death of Denis O’neill by ill-treatment of foster father (Baldock, 1994; Baugh, 1987). Children Committee with its own chief officer and staff was set up by the Act and the duty to investigate cases of child neglect and to take formal procedures to bring children protection required into the care of the local government were given to it (Baldock, 1994). These demand of specialist staff undertake this task by the Act was crucial factor to led further development of social work, a new public service profession (Hill, 2000). This was consolidated with introduction of training course for social worker in the London School of Economics from 1954 (Adams, 1996).

Besides these broaden responsibility and services of local government, rights into the social care of the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped was clearly extended during this period (Salter, 1994). The 1959 Mental Health Act, led by the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Law Relating to Mental Illness and Mental Deficiency in 1957, built the principle that the mentally ill should be treated in the same way as the physically ill as far as possible and provides the initial basis of current services for the mentally ill (Baugh, 1987).

The emergence and expansion of modern personal social services in 1960s and 1970s

Along with its first official use of the word, ‘personal social service’ in title, the publication of the Seebohm Report ‘Local Authority and Allied Personal Social Service’ (Committee on Local Authority and Allied Personal Social Services, 1968) is usually regarded formal origin of personal social services in modern society. It not only led establishment of integrated social service department in local authority and formed personal social service as one of a unitary public service area, but also dramatic increase of provision of the services at that time.

However, this significant development did not happen one day. Rather this change tended to be limited to administrative reform without any profound expansion of the responsibility of local authority on social services or rights about social care of members of community (Bilton, 1979). These expansions had taken place through a range of legislations in 1960s: the 1962 National Assistance (Amendment) Act, the 1963 Children and Young Person Act, and the 1968 Health Service and Public Health Act. They just followed series of the expansion started from those in 1940s and 50s just discussed above.

The 1962 National Assistance (Amendment) Act allowed local government to provide meals on wheels directly for the first time which was only available from voluntary organisation before under the 1948 National Assistance Act (Means & Smith, 1994). The 1963 Children and Young Person Act was based on the ‘Report of the Committee on Children and Young Persons’, Ingleby Report in 1960 (Baugh, 1987). As the Report emphasised preventative role of social service, particularly in juvenile crime issues (Cypher, 1979; Hall, 1976), the Act gave more power and to promote the welfare of children and to take preventative action against family breakdown through children’s department established by the 1948 Children Act (Baugh, 1987) Fostering and adoption gradually replaced residential child care (Adams, 1996). The social care right of the elderly which was introduced by the 1948 National Assistance Act was further strengthened through the 1968 Health Service and Public Health Act by giving local government powers to provide home helps, visiting, and social work and warden services even though actual provision of services still under discretion of provider (Salter, 1994).

These extensions of social services had been mainly driven by the growing concern about rising in juvenile delinquency and in number of elderly people who were occupying hospital beds without any alternative form of residential care (Baldock, 1994; Sullivan, 1996). Lowe (2005) points out some reasons why these concern caused expansion of social services rather than other harsh measures such as more punishments or encouraging family responsibilities. First one was widely disseminated belief of cost-effectiveness of preventive measure. This belief in juvenile delinquency was well reflected in Ingleby Report. As far as the elderly and the disabled were concerned, it was more easily understood that, without any preventive measure, more cost had to be eventually born within the NHS.

This belief was more underpinned by the development of social work profession after the ‘generic’ graining course for social workers had launched in LSE (Lowe, 2005). Following Eileen Younghusband’s proposal, the 1962 Health Visitors’ and Social Workers’ Training Act helped such course became standard and unitary development of the new profession (Adams, 1996). Coinciding with this professional development, the recognition within the social service staff begun to change. The new generation of social service professionals move away from judgemental assumption in 1950s to more understanding social and structural causes behind individual and family problems (Sullivan, 1996). Lowe (2005) also illustrates this development supported by scientific advance such as new drugs which enabled the mentally ill treated safely within community and new approach which enabled Down’s syndrome children educable.

However, the range of expansion of social services in early 1960s had not been sufficient to reverse growing concern of juvenile delinquency which led to set up new committee to review the organisation and the responsibilities of the local authority personal social services in England and Wales’ (Committee on Local Authority and Allied Personal Social Services, 1968, p. 11), the Seebohm Committee in 1965.

The Committee’s (1968) eventual recommendations were threefold. First, each local authority should have a unified social services department which bring together the professional workers from the children’s department and the health and welfare departments they previously deployed. By 1968, the national picture of social services provision was chaotic as some local authority provide welfare service by health committee while others by combined health and welfare department or solely welfare committee (Hall, 1976).

Second, these departments should be headed by a director approved by the Secretary of State for Health of Social Security, whose responsibility was to ensure that the new social service departments were placed as a part of a network of services in the community rather than isolated service provider. The recommendation of approval of the Secretary on the appointment of all director in new unitary department was introduced in spite of tis unpopularity among local government, as the Committee wanted to concentrate the responsibility of the new departments into one Department of State including training and inspectorate (Bilton, 1979). Final one was that generic training and further research should be encouraged.

These recommendations were included in the 1970 Local Authority Social Service Act which passed in the last days of the Labour Government with cooperation of the Conservatives (Sullivan, 1996). By the Act, social services departments in local authorities was established; a duty to employ adequate staff to help the director of social services carry out personal social services functions was posed; united specialisms including child care and mental health was introduced; and the rationale for a generically trained and organised social work professions was created (Adams, 1996).

However, the Act did not include every thing originally recommended by the Committee (Bilton, 1979). It did not enlarge the responsibilities of local authority and exclude child guidance, education welfare and housing welfare services. It would not intended to entail additional expenditure apart from some cost by appointment of Directors of Social Services and other supporting staff (Bilton, 1979). Nevertheless, as soon as the social services departments were set, a dramatic increase in service provision was experienced arguably because general accessibility of services was significantly improved (Cypher, 1979). Dramatic increase was not limited in the amount of service provision. It happened with in great growth of the number of social workers mainly by two administrative upheavals – the local government reorganisation of 1971 and 1974 (Adams, 1996; Lowe, 2005).

Furthermore, new duties of the new department had been given not by the 1970 Act but by a series of legislations passed just before and after the establishment of the Act (Cypher, 1979; Hall, 1976). The power to provide domiciliary service for the elderly introduced to the local authorities by 1968 Health Service and Public Health Act was taken by the new united social services department.

The responsibility given by the 1969 Children and Young Persons Act to decide whether to send the child committed to local authority by the juvenile court to a residential community home, to foster parents or to return him or her (Baugh, 1987) became another duty of the department likewise. The Act was the attempt to divert young offenders from labelling as criminals to more integrative and community-based alternative system focusing on responsibility for care rather than punishment for crime (Adams, 1996; Hill, 2000). It was the most significant legislation in its kind but it was peak rather than start of new era as the direction of the juvenile delinquency policy was reverted in the future (Adams, 1996).

The expansion of responsibility of new social services departments went on with the 1970 Chronically Sick and Disabled Person Act which make it mandatory on local authorities to find out who the disabled are and to let them know what services are available to them (Means & Smith, 1994). It lasted until the 1973 National Health Service Re-organisation Act which put social workers in hospital under the umbrella of the social service department and placed a statutory duty on the local government to coordinate with the health authority in order to improve the health and welfare of residents requiring both service (Hall, 1976; Hill, 2000). This was the Act to tackle increasingly problematic issue in cooperation between the health authority and local government as the responsibility of health services overlapped between them (Adams, 1996; Wanless, 2006).

While these series of expansion of personal social services led general standard of care rose and some evidence said satisfaction of the services was improved (Lowe, 2005), they made the gap far more evident between universalist aim of social services introduced by the legislations and available resources from the government. The spending on personal social services increased by 12 per cent per annum between 1970 and 74 (Sullivan, 1996) but it was far behind people’s expectation risen by expended right of social care. Particularly, the new duty of local government to publicise to registered disabled people the services they had a right to expect drew anger rather than satisfaction due to failure to make available sufficient fund to provide the services (Adams, 1996; Lowe, 2005). The death of Maria Colwell in 1973 was symbolic incident showed restrictions of new system.

Marketisation of personal social service from 1980 to 1997

The main concern in personal social services development dominated in this period was financial pressure. As economic difficulties begun from mid-1960s had been deepen through 1970s, the pressure on welfare state budgets increased considerably not only from supply which was limited by declined revenue from slumped economy, but also from demand side which was increased by, for example, growing unemployment (Ellison, 1998). It became more serious concern in term of personal social services because it was after experience of the sharp increase in the expenditure following a series of expansion of the social care right and accessibility of services among children, the elderly and the disabled during 1970s.

The trend of expansion was reversed. The extension of local government responsibility on personal services was turned to that of individual and family responsibility on their own care. This conversion was evident in the 1989 Children Act. While the Act was one of the most comprehensive legislation for children consolidating previous laws and ensuring protection and interests of children (Adams, 1996; Hill, 2000), it made it clear that the prime responsibility for the care of children should lie with parents rather than with government (Lowe, 2005).

The other response of Conservative Government to the financial pressure was to cap local government capital expenditure and it entailed shortage of residential accommodation of local authority to the elderly and rapid growth in number of those form voluntary and private agencies (Lowe, 2005). Then situation got worse. The Department of Health and Social Services amended the Supplementary Benefit regulations to make it easier for Income Support recipients to claim fees of the increased private and voluntary care (or nursing) home from the social security system in the early 1980s. This triggered not only further dramatic growth of new homes in private sector but also social security expenditure as the money for this residential care came not from limited local government budget but from open-ended social security system (Wanless, 2006). The expenditure on Supplementary Benefit rocketed from £10 million in 1979 to £459 million per annum by early 1986 as the number of the beneficiaries jumped from 12,000 to 90,000 (Means & Smith, 1994).

The Government turned for advice on this problem to the managing director in Sainsbury, Sir Roy Griffith and asked to review the way of public funding for community care and provide options for action in 1986 (Lowe, 2005). Eventually, he published his report (Griffiths, 1988) and recommended that the funding for residential accommodation should be transferred from the social security budget back to local authority which should be the institution having core role in community care including the assessment of community care needs and the formulation of community care plan in their community; the financial management of community care; the provision of information to consumers and providers of care; and the assessment of individual needs and the design of packages of care to meet the needs (Adams, 1996; Lowe, 2005). Griffiths also emphasised that local government should no longer be a major provider of social services but an ‘enabler’ while have a responsibility to ensure that individuals receive care to meet assessed needs either from the public or private sector (Hill, 2000; Lowe, 2005). This idea was revolutionary at that time (Wanless, 2006).

These recommendations were enacted in the 1990 National Health Service and Community Care Act. Local authority social services department have become the central coordinating and strategic agency for community care various provider from public as well as voluntary and private sector involved (Sullivan, 1996). Yet it also means local authorities lost its statues as a near-monopoly provider and became purchaser of the services. The two key features of the community care reform were, in fact, the ‘purchaser-provider split’ and a shift in the balance of provision from the state to voluntary, private and informal sectors (Langan, 1998) in order to promote efficiency and consumer choice through market principle in personal social services. It was, in other words, maketisation of personal social services.

Efficient services could be encouraged through the marketisation but guaranteeing service standard was different matter. Actually, as maketisation means more involvement of private and voluntary sector and less direct control of government on service provision, more stringent regulation on service standard was the other side of coin in the community care reform. More centralised control and regulation on social serviced introduced through the 1984 Registered Home Act and monitoring system by the Audit Commission and a new Social Service Inspectorate (Adams, 1996; Lowe, 2005). All private nursing homes for the mentally handicapped have to be registered with the district health authority and residential homes with the local government under the 1984 Act. Systematic monitoring with statistics and qualitative data on management structure, staff, financial resources, service management and delivery process had been conducted since establishment of Social Service Inspectorate in 1985.

Many argues the community care reform – marketisation of social services and adaptation of case management - was more about transition of paradigm of social service from supply-led or provider-led services to user-led or need-led service (Adams, 1996; Payne, 2000). While this claim is still contentious as one of the direction of the reform was to strengthen the control of spending on social service, which entails restriction on the social care right of service user, it is true that rights and voices of service users’ more explicitly improved through some legislations during this period.

The most beneficiaries were mental health patients. The 1983 Mental Health Act stressed provision of community services to meet their individual need and encouraged voluntary admission to hospital where possible (Means & Smith, 1994). Also Mental Health Tribunals set up by the Act improved the interests and rights of them (Adams, 1996). Also financial support became available to help them to leave hospital and to be treated in the community by the 1983 Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudication Act (Baugh, 1987).

The 1996 Community Care (Direct Payments) Act allowed certain categories of people to receive a cash payment for arrangement of services they need by their own. Although its take-up rate remained extremely low at that time, it was important step forward in terms of user’s involvement as it gave genuine choice directly to service users rather than odd ‘consumer choice’ encouraged in the community care reform in 1990 practiced by different purchaser rather than consumer.

Modernising personal social services under New Labour

After the first landslide victory of the New Labour Government in 1997, the most evident change in public service including personal social service took place in political lexicon from market and competition to cooperation and partnership. ‘Modernisation’ has been the umbrella word representing major changes in public services still in progress (Benington, 2000). As far as personal social services concerned, while the importance of social services was recognised through the modernisation reform, this has been not marketisation or privatisation in 1980s nor back to monopolistic state provision of the public services in 1970s (Heron & Dwyer, 1999; Martin, 2000; Wanless, 2006). Initially, in practice, New Labour Government not only made its distance from marketisaion of former Government by abolishing Compulsory Competitive Tendering which was the toughest measure for that of local government services but also made it clear not to returned to universalist expansion of social care rights by rejecting majority report of Royal Commission on Long Term Care which suggested free personal care.

Original reform plan of New Labour Government on personal social services appeared in it’s the White Paper, Modernsing Social Services: Promoting Independence, Improving Protection, Raising Standard (Department of Health, 1998). When the reforms put into practice hitherto are considered, the plan could be outlined into three directions. The first one has been cooperation and partnership not only between different public authorities by joint-up services but also between public authorities and other private sectors. This comes with more rigorous centralist and managerialist measurement to improve their standard of the services with massive number of and various kinds of targets. The final direction has been to encourage rights and independence of vulnerable people.

The most significant areas the Government has been trying to improve the partnership has been social services and health. The 1999 Health Act was a remarkable step as the Act tackled many organizational obstacles which permitted pooled budget, lead commissioning, and integrated provision with ‘one-stop’ package between health and social services authorities (Bywaters & McLeod, 2001). They has put a range of administrative and institutional measures into practice such as responsibility of social services department to involve planning and managing health care provision by representation in Primary Care Trust (PCT), to participate Intermediate Care initiative, and to operating Single Assessment Process (Bywaters & McLeod, 2001; Wanless, 2006). Care Trusts which are single multi-purpose statutory bodies to be responsible for all health and social care in the community are one of the organisational developments to guarantee great level of integration.

Health and social care are not only area which partnership is problematic. Also this issue is not restrict to statutory organisations. A series of comprehensive local initiatives to promote social inclusion such as Health Action Zones, and Sure Start have not been limited partnership project within state authority. Various private sectors including voluntary and community organisations have been involved to tackle health and education inequality in their community (Bywaters & McLeod, 2001; Painter, 1999). This wide range of partnership has also been encouraged through sets of standard led by central government such as National Service Framework and Local Area Agreement (Wanless, 2006).

However, a number of centrally-led frameworks with rigorous targets and measurement system are not only to encourage partnership. Rather it has developed to improve standard of social services alongside of dramatic increase in number of voluntary and private organisations involved in service provision since 1980s. Principal ground for minimum standard and monitoring system was set by the 2000 Care Standard Act (Lowe, 2005; Wanless, 2006). National Care Standard Commission was established as a responsible body for the registration and regulation of care services. The Commission, Social Services Inspectorate, and Joint Review with the Audit Commission were consolidated into the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) which become a single body to evaluate and regulate all public and private providers in social care by the 2003 Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standard) Act (Department of Health, 2003).

While minimum standard and the CSCI is more about protection of service users, National Service Frameworks (NSFs) lunched in 1998 are much wider range of measurement to improve level of standard of specific service in long term (Department of Health, 2007). NSFs provide a set of national standard developed with the assistance of an external reference group composed by various professionals and stakeholders for each service or care group including mental health, older people, and children. Local Area Agreement (LAA) and Local Public Service Agreement (LPSA) are the other example of proactive initiative for better social service particularly at local level by improving local public service delivery system, providing framework for new relationship between central and local government, and encouraging greater partnership between various organisations in the community (Department of Health, 2005).

Finally, development of direct payment system and carer’s rights could be regarded the other direction of social services policy of New Labour. Direct payment, which was introduced former Conservative Government but remained extremely low take-up rage, was extended as new guidance made it a duty for local government to offer direct payment for eligible people. More service users could enjoy greater control on their own services through direct payment.

Carers had been neglected although they play vital role in personal services as the majority needs actually fulfilled by them rather than other formal provider. Yet they could have their own rights to be assessed and get services including direct payment in the 2000 Carers and Disabled Children Act. Furthermore more carers’ needs such as employment, life-long learning, and leisure activities had to be taken into account in the assessments and this rights and available services for them had to be informed by local authorities under the 2004 Carers (Equal Opportunity) Act.

What drives policy development in personal social services?

We can find some remarkable changes in terms of policy development in personal social services, for example, from focus on civil right on social care in 1960s and 1970s to control on cost of care in 1980s and 1990s; extension of social services in state provision by 70s and rapidly growing involvement of private and voluntary sector together with more powerful control from the centre on services quality from 1980s onward; and more emphasis on service users’ choice and involvement in services provision from 1990s.

There are two contradictory interpretations summarising this process of policy development of personal social services in Britain from 1940s to current. Establishing but suddenly diminishing rights for social care favour to free-market society (Baines, 2004; Ellison, 1998; Esping-Andersen, 1996) is the one side and growing empowerment of service users away from state- and market-led services toward more responsive service to them and more their involvement in shaping, delivering, and evaluating services (Adams, 1996; Wanless, 2006).

However, interpretation on the policy development and analysing determining forces of the development are different matters although both are partly related. While these two issues often confused in academic discussion, in other word, defining features or directions of policy development process and causal factors to determine them should be distinguished in order to find out how the development taken place.

Within the literatures about policy development of social care, there are two distinguishing stances saying what are major forces to determine the particular direction of the development. One is to explain process of policy development with continuing tension between growing social needs on personal care and limited resources available. Showing more complex political dynamics between various actors and under certain environmental factors is the other. However, there are significant limitations in these explanations and this provide the reason why we need to look at ideological changes of governments for the better understanding of the policy development.

Constant tension between growing needs and limited resources

Many argue that, while describing developing process of social care policy, it is eventually or partly determined by government control on growing needs on personal support due to financial constraint for the services (Baugh, 1987; Evandrou, Falkingham, & Glennerster, 1990; Lewis, 1999; Salter, 1994). Salter (1994) demonstrates that, in particular, personal social service policy has been developed through government control of demand by changes in the way how needs identification and services accessed on one side and control of supply by finance and resource allocation on the other while they confront with the effect of continuing expansion of rights to social care.

These claims have two assumptions. Social needs to social services are continuously growing and available resources to fulfil these needs are highly limited. Growing social needs are usually described with a range of social changes has been continued since post-war period. Demographic changes in aging population and low birth rage would be more directly influential factors on growing needs as the elderly are one of the conventional client groups of social services (Adams, 1996; Hill, 2000; Wanless, 2006). Other social changes including family structure such as increasing family break-up, single member family, and lone parent, have an impact on rising need to social services and these diminish capacity of care for individuals (Hill, 2000; Wanless, 2006).

While there is some frustrating trends in these figures from 1940s to current, it is fair to say that there are, overall, far more factor would have effect on growth in needs. A range of figures showing changing structure of family indicate the significant decline of the care capacity in families (see, for example, Babb, Butcher, Church, & Zealey, 2006). Moreover, in fact, there are more changes to diminish family care capacity such as growing employment in female, as traditionally female member of family have central role in informal care.

However, the level of available resource for social care is highly political issue rather than inevitable environmental factors determining development social services. Limited resources in personal social services are usually illustrated with limited level of social expenditure on it comparing to growing social needs (Lowe, 2005; Sullivan, 1996) but the amount of expenditure on personal social services is rather ‘effect’ determined by government decision than ‘cause’ influencing level of social services.

In fact, strictly speaking, total available resources in contemporary society for social services is Gross Domestic Product (GDP) referring to the whole the amount of value produced within national boundary, which means total mount of money can be spend not the spending on the social care already determined within GDP. The fact that current level of spending on social care is just around 1 per cent says there are sufficient places the level can be significantly increased. So there has been highly limited spending on social services causing profound gap between need and resources not because there has been limited resources available at the first place but because it is limited by government decision.

Political dynamics in the policy development

As Payne (2000) argues that social work (or care) changes result from interaction between various social groups basing on power relation among them, this tend to be common practice that a number of political interaction during policy making process and its enforcement or implementation in the literatures about the social services policy development (Adams, 1996; Baldock, 1994; Ellison, 1998; Evandrou, Falkingham, & Glennerster, 1990; Lowe, 2005; Means & Smith, 1994; Powell & Hewitt, 1998; Sullivan, 1996; Wanless, 2006). This shows political dynamics in the policy development of personal social services.

This is relating to social care professions, for example, development and movement of social workers’ organisations (Adams, 1996; Bilton, 1979; Evandrou, Falkingham, & Glennerster, 1990; Lowe, 2005; Sullivan, 1996); Ideological terrain in the contemporary society such as rising radicalism in 1960s (Adams, 1996); general concern of public at that times such as juvenile delinquency issues in 1960s (Adams, 1996; Baldock, 1994); influence of new theory such as new public management in 1980s (Ellison, 1998); and political accidents triggered a certain institutional changes, for example, regulatory change to allow funding residential care by social security system in 1980s (Baldock, 1994).

It is true that there have been a lot of political stories behind major changes in the policy development in social care as same as any other policy areas. However, if we just list up a range of events relating to a certain changes it would be descriptive approach and this does not help systematic understanding of casual factors on the policy development. In fact, these events never directly led to policy change. In other to change any major policy, there must be political interpretation by government before they appeared any legislative form to lead actual implementation.

Interestingly, in the literatures about the policy development in social services, while there are more various political interaction described relating to the changes by 1970s, political ideology of government tend to be major concern after 1980s (Adams, 1996; Ellison, 1998; Lowe, 2005; Payne, 2000; Sullivan, 1996; Wanless, 2006). However, there is a profound lack of evidence and analysis about how this ideological changes lead to policy changes and causal relationship in it. This is the core place and question which this second half of the study addresses.

Bibliography

Adams, R. (1996). The personal social services: clients, consumers or citizens? London: Longman.

Babb, P., Butcher, H., Church, J., & Zealey, L. (2006). National Statistics: Social trends (Vol. 36): Palgrave Macmillan.

Baines, D. (2004). Pro-market, non-market: the dual nature of organizational change in social service delivery. Critical Social Policy, 24(1), 5-29.

Baldock, J. (1994). The personal social services: the politics of care. In V. George & S. Miller (Eds.), Social policy towards 2000. London: Routledge.

Baugh, W. E. (1987). Introduction to the social services (5th ed.). London: Macmillan Education.

Benington, J. (2000). The modernization and improvement of government and public service. Public money and management, 20(2).

Bilton, K. (1979). Origins, progress and future. In J. Cypher (Ed.), Seebohm across three decades: social services departments past, present and future. Birmingham: BASW Publications.

Bywaters, P., & McLeod, E. (2001). The impact of New Labour health policy on social services: a New Deal for service users' health? British Journal of Social Work, 31, 579-594.

Committee on Local Authority and Allied Personal Social Services. (1968). Report of the Committee on Local Authority and Allied Personal Social Services. Cmnd 3703: HMSO.

Cypher, J. (Ed.). (1979). Seebohm across three decades: social service departments past, present and future. Birmingham: BASW Publications.

Department of Health. (1998). Modernising social service: promoting independence, improving protection, raising standards. Cm 4169: The Stationery Office.

Department of Health. (2003). Care home for older people: national minimun standards and care homes regulations 2001 (3rd ed.). London: TSO.

Department of Health. (2005). Local Area Agreements and Local Public Service Agreements. Retrieved 03.12, 2006, from http://www.dh.gov.uk/AboutUs/MinistersAndDepartmentLeaders/ChiefMedicalOfficer/Features/FeaturesArticle/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=4116435&chk=BmbaGN

Department of Health. (2007). National service frameworks (NSFs). Retrieved 28. 6., 2007, from http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Policyandguidance/Healthandsocialcaretopics/DH_4070951

DH. (1998). Modernising social service: promoting independence, improving protection, rasing standards: Department of Health.

Ellison, N. (1998). The changing politics of social policy. In N. Ellison & C. Pierson (Eds.), Development in British social policy: Macmillan.

Esping-Andersen, G. (Ed.). (1996). Welfare states in transition: national adaptation in grobal economies. London: Sage.

Evandrou, M., Falkingham, J., & Glennerster, H. (1990). The personal social services: 'everyone's poor relation but nobody's baby'. In J. Hills (Ed.), The state of welfare: the welfare state in Britain since 1974. Oxford: Carendon Press.

Griffiths, R. (1988). Community care: agenda for action. London: HMSO.

Hall, P. (1976). Reforming the welfare: the politics of change in the personal social services. London: Heinemann.

Heron, E., & Dwyer, P. (1999). Doing the right things: Labour's attempt to forge a new welfare deal between the individual and the state. Social Policy and Administration, 33(1), 91-104.

Hill, M. (2000). Local authority social services: an introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Langan, M. (1998). The personal social services. In N. Ellison & C. Pierson (Eds.), Development in British social policy: Macmillan.

Lewis, J. (1999). The concepts of community care and primary care in the UK: the 1960s to the 1990s. Health and social care in the community, 7(5), 333-341.

Lowe, R. (2005). The welfare state in Britain since 1945 (3rd ed.). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Martin, S. (2000). Implementing 'Best Value': local public services in transition. Public administration, 78(1).

Means, R., & Smith, R. (1994). Community care: policy and practice. London: Macmillan.

Painter, C. (1999). Public service reform from Thatcher to Blair: a third way. Parliamentary Affairs, 52(1), 94-112(119).

Payne, M. (2000). The politics of case management and social work. International Journal of Social Welfare, 9, 82-91.

Powell, M., & Hewitt, M. (1998). The end of the Welfare State? Social Policy and Administration, 32(1), 1-13.

Salter, B. (1994). The politics of community care: social rights and welfare limits. Policy and Politics, 22(2), 119-131.

Sullivan, M. (1996). Personal social services. In The development of the British welfare state: Prentice Hall/Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Wanless, D. (2006). Securing good care for older people: taking a long-term view. London: King's Fund.

Research poster

2007-09-27T17:18:00.000+01:00

This is the research poster of this research presented at an even of the Department of Social Policy and Social Work in the University of York for research students.

You can see the poster with full size if you click below image.

Alternative research plan

2007-06-06T00:35:00.000+01:00

Outline of the plan

Changes from original plan
- The last part of research which was analysis of the influence of the political ideology on policy practice in Health Action Zones (HAZs) is excluded since major data is unlikely to be collected
- Analysis of the role of ideology on policy focus on the development of social services while the original plan was extended to area-based initiative (ABIs) policy as HAZs was developed as one of the ABIs of New Labour alongside a trailblazer of social service reform
- Analysis of New Labour ideology is extended to the would-be resignation of Blair as the analysis originally limited to their first term because of HAZs which was the project finished by 2003
  - Exclusion of Brown’s speeches in the analysis is considered in order to make a balance with other government.
  - Also it need to be considered as currently the possible limitation of his politics under the shadow of Blair become apparent as well as some ideological change is expected (or already started) with his new premiership

Methodological frame
- In order to adapt theoretical frame of constructivism discussed in Introduction, the second part of research would be conducted with following methodological fame
  - General interpretation of the situation around social service area is defined through reviews of contemporary academic literatures on social services and possible strategic choices for policy makers will be also outlined through the review
  - Strategic selective interpretation of the challenges and policy choices of the contemporary government is defined through the analysis of key policy documents, mainly including White papers and Green papers
  - The influence of ideology on policy is analysed through the comparison of their strategic interpretation and policy choices with political ideology of the government is conducted by using similar framework in the ideological analysis
- Following framework will be used for the analysis of strategic interpretation and choices and the defining the influence of ideology (frameworks used in ideological analysis each refers to)
  - Interpretation of challenges to contemporary society in social services (understanding of their times)
  - Understanding of objectives in social services (objectives)
  - Major policy strategy in social services (major strategies)
  - Major actor in social service policy (major actors)
  - Public philosophy under the strategies (public philosophy)
  - Right and responsibility of citizen in social services (citizenship)

synopsis of chapters

Chapter 5 Ideology and changes in social service policy
- Introduction of part II
- Overall review of development of social services from 1960s to current (literature review)
  - Defining development stages of social services
- Discussion on major causes of the changes: needs or resources or ideologies
- Methodology
  - Framework for analysis: adaptation of ideological frame
  - Comparison between contemporary academic discussion, and policy choice and making
  - discourse or narrative analysis, analysing documents

Chapter 6 Ideas for the emergent of social services in 1960s and 70s
- Review of contemporary literatures on social services in 1960s and 70s (Seebohm Report?)
- Analysis of key policy documents in 1960s and 70s
  - HO (1964) The children, the family and the young offender. Home Office
  - DHSS (1971) Better services for the mentally handicapped. Department of Health and Social Security
  - DHSS (1975) Better services for the mentally ill. Department of Health and Social Security
  - DHSS (1976) Priorities for Health and Personal Social Services in England: a consultative document. Department of Health and Social Security
  - DHSS (1977) Priorities in health and personal social services: The way forward. Department of Health and Social Security

Chapter 7 Social services in and by community in 1980s and 90s
- Review of contemporary literatures on social services in 1980s and 90s (Griffiths Report?)
- Analysis of key policy documents in 1980s and 90s
  - DHSS (1981) Care in Action: a handbook of policies and priorities for the health and social services in England. Department of Health and Social Security
  - DHSS (1981) Growing older. Department of Health and Social Security
  - DoH (1989) Caring for people: community care in the next decade and beyond. Department of Health
  - DoH (1989) Working for patients. Department of Health
  - DoH (1991) The Health of the Nation. Department of Health

Chapter 8 New Labour and modernising social services in 2000s
- Review of contemporary literatures on social services under New Labour
- Analysis of key policy documents under New Labour government
  - DH (1998) Modernising social services. Department of Health
  - DH (1998) Partnership in Action. Department of Health
  - DH (1998) Saving lives: Our healthier nation. Department of Health
  - DH (2000) The NHS plan. Department of Health
  - DH (2001) Valuing people: a new strategy for learning disability for the 21^st century. Department of Health
  - DfES (2003) Every child matters. Department for Education and Skills
  - DH (2005) Independence, well-being and choice: our vision for the future of social care for adult in England. Department of Health
  - DH (2006) Our health, our care, our say: a new direction for community services. Department of Health

Conclusion: New ideology for new alternative
- Discussions and summary of finding
- Further research: secondary analysis of qualitative data
- Implications of the research

Alternative directions of the research

2007-06-06T00:31:00.000+01:00

The issue

Outline of current situation
- In order to collect qualitative data from national evaluation of Health Action Zone for the last part of my research, E-mails were sent to following former members of the three national evaluation teams
  - Michaela Benzeval
    Author of ‘the final report of the tackling inequalities in Health module’ (national evaluation of Health Action Zones)
    Queen Mary, University of London
  - Mhairi Mackenzie
    Co-author of ‘the integrated case studies: a move toward whole system change?’ (national evaluation of Health Action Zones)
    the University of Glasgow
  - Elizabeth Matka
    Co-author of ‘the development of collaborative capacity in Health Action Zones’ (national evaluation of Health Action Zones)
    the University of Birmingham
- There has been responses from Mhairi Mackenzie and Elizabeth Matka and both of them rejected my request with following reason
  - Both of them raised ethical issue on re-using qualitative data in different research as they took consents from their participants just for their research
  - Matka also concerned about confidentiality issue
  - Mackenzie explained additionally it would be time-consuming task for them to select interviews suitable for my research purpose between massive amount of interviews they conducted; many of them were unlikely to be available as the research conducted five years ago; and, theoretical point of view, they did not understand how their data could be used for different research purpose
- Any further request of qualitative data to other national evaluation team as well as local evaluation team are highly likely to be rejected with similar reasons, particularly with ethical issue
- This is inevitable to consider profoundly other alternative direction for the rest of my research

Ethical issue
- Informed consent issue in secondary analysis of qualitative data is the most significant problem to be addressed as other issues could be disputed as follows
  - There are a number of way to protect confidentiality of participants, for example, removing any information showing any personal identity in advance and this is negotiable with researcher of original interview
  - Selecting appropriate interview data will be my job rather than their job as long as they can provide all of their data as much as possible even though many of them are not available
  - Also further explanation can be provided to prove the reason why their data are necessary for my research more sufficiently
- There is no clear ethical criteria for informed consent issue in secondary analysis of pre-existing qualitative data since this is underdeveloped area
  - Heaton found only two studies in fifty five secondary analysis research of qualitative data reported seeking informed consent from the participants retrospectively and prospectively respectively.
  - Ethical code on reusing qualitative data vary depending on discipline and professional organisation but it is usually recommended that wider informed consent including possibility of further research should be considered at the original research since obtaining consent retrospectively is hardly feasible
  - However, this is still not the common practice in qualitative research and this is not the case for this situation.

Possible options

Disputing ethical argument
- The request of the data could be reclaimed with counter argument against their ethical concern
  - Janet advised if the data has been anonymised so interviewees in the original research can not be identified, the request could be defended on this ground
  - Also it might be considerable to raise this issue for official judgement in ethical committee in the University (or the original researchers’ institute)
- Advantages of this option
  - The original plan of the research can be sustained
  - The discussion on the ethical issue in the secondary analysis of qualitative data might strengthen the originality of the research
- Disadvantages
  - There is no guarantee to get the data eventually
  - The process could take long time (particularly if it goes to the committee)
  - The plan has been already delayed so it would be unwise to chose time-consuming option

Using alternative data
- There is another kind of data which could be analysed for the research at the practice level
  - Documents produced while HAZs in local governments or partnership agencies could be analysed as an alternative data
  - These official documents might be more accessible than the interview scripts having ethical issue
- Advantages
  - The original research plan could be relatively intact
- Disadvantage
  - It would be also time-consuming work to collect documents (including defining range, type, and amount of documents) when already delayed schedule is considered
  - Ideological narratives are not likely to be appeared in documents for implementation at the practical level

Removing the last part of research
- The last part of the research including the secondary analysis of interview data (analysing role of political ideology in policy implementation at the front line) could be removed in the research and the scope of the second part research which is to identify influence of political ideology in social service and area-based initiative from 1960s to 2000s could be extended instead
  - Analysis of New Labour ideology could be also extended to second term or the resignation of Blair
  - More robust method to analyse policy documents would be adapted, for example, with reference to discourse analysis
- Advantage
  - This would be the most realistic option when feasibility and delayed schedule are considered
- Disadvantage
  - Originality of the research could be damaged as the analysis of role of ideology at the practical level, most unique part of the research, is removed
  - Further justification of limited policy area (social service and area-based initiatives) would be required as it is justified with the distance of the practice in these area from the central government
  - Further consideration of overall thesis structure to make right balance between two part of research is needed

Using accessible data source
- More accessible data sources in archive could be used such as ESDS Qualidata
  - The most close data to one originally intended to get was a range of transcript of interview with workers in local health authorities to look at policy process at the practical level was found in the initial search (SN 4572 Understanding Health Variations and Policy Variations, 1999)
- Advantage
  - Original research question could be relatively intact as analysis at the practice level is included
- Disadvantage
  - The significant change of the second part of research is required as the policy area is changed from social service and area-based initiative to health
  - This could be also problem for my future career as health is generally not included in narrower scope of discipline called ‘social welfare’ in Korea than social policy in UK

Chapter 4 Conservative Ideology: Thatcher and Major Government

2007-06-06T00:26:00.001+01:00

It might be inappropriate to discuss ‘ideology’ in Conservative politics. Conservative commentators often says Conservative politics more base on ‘common sense’ (Ball & Holliday, 2002), adaptableness (Holmes, 1989), or pragmatism (Gilmour & Garnett, 1997; Riddell, 1985; Willetts, 1992) concerning political practice rather than theory while accuse Labour politicians of ideologue and criticise their politics as dogmatic. However, ironically, Thatcherism, very ideological title in Conservative politics, is one of the most studied topics in British politics (Kavanagh, 1997). Even some Conservative politicians condemn Thatcher government for being ‘fervently ideological’ (Gilmour & Garnett, 1997, p. 383). Not surprisingly, this confusion mainly comes from different perspectives on concepts of ‘ideology’. So if we limit meaning of ideology in this study, as defined in the Introduction, into conceptual morphology (Humphrey, 2005) beyond orthodox concept of ideology often found in denials of it in Conservative politics, the contradiction in studying Conservative ideology would be avoided.

Thatcher Government is chosen for the analysis of Conservative ideology due to its significance as just mentioned above. Furthermore, as found in Chapter 1, ideology of Thatcher Government has more importance then that of any other governments to clarify New Labour ideology since the comparison between two ideologies appears in most of researches about ideology of New Labour. Major Government is selected as it is the government just prior to New Labour Government.

Some questions need to be addressed before the analysis. First one is whether Thatcherism is a break with traditional Conservatism. It would be important as ideology of Thatcher Government is analysed as a Conservative ideology. This is examined through discussion in the ideological tradition and terrain in the Conservative Party. Second question is about consistency and coherence of Thatcherism as an ideology which will be discussed by the review of a range of literatures about it. Relationship of ideology between Thatcher and Major Government would be the last before the analysis of their speeches to finally define the conceptual structure of their ideology.

Conservative ideology and Thatcherism

Significance of Thatcher in Conservative as well as British politics could not be emphasised enough. Even a number of simple facts simply imply this: the first woman as a leader of a party of government and Prime Minister, the only one to have won three successive general elections before Blair, and the longest-serving Prime Minister. However, this significance often leads to the accusation of being break with traditional Conservatism. Gilmour & Garnett (1997) argues Thatcher Government was too dogmatic and ideological at the expense of a balanced approach to policy in Conservative tradition. Also Gamble (1983) claims Conservatives tended to be the party of the community, protection, paternalism, and intervention rather than the market, free trade, self-help, and laissez-faire, which were core values of Thatcher Government.

It is important point in the discussion of ideology of Thatcher Government because, if it is true, we must distinguish Thatcherism from Conservative ideology then may need different discussion to find out more general conservatism. If not, ideology of Thatcher Government could be analysed as a part of conservatism or in the context of development in Conservative ideology. This would be examined by looking back to the tradition of Conservative Party as well as Conservative politics since World War two.

Tory tradition

The Conservative Party has been, literally, the party to conserve. Traditionally the Establishment, the Union, and the Empire had been the three main pillars for the Party to conserve (Charmley, 1996). However, as a result of franchise extension since mid-1880s, new principle was required to the Party to survive in the tide of changes in political circumstance (Ball & Holliday, 2002). It was Disraeli who showed new direction of Conservative politics with his symbolic speeches at the Manchester Free Trade Hall and Crystal Palace in 1872: ‘another great object of the Tory party, and one not inferior to the maintenance of the Empire, or the upholding of our institutions, is the elevation of the condition of the people’ (Evans & Taylor, 1996, p. 8; Willetts, 1992).

This means the acceptance of inevitable state regulation and intervention private interest to improve the condition of working class (Evans & Taylor, 1996). This philosophy of Disraeli was also emotionally presented his novel, Sybil describing two nations which ignored each other and shared no common thought, and feelings as if lived in different planet: the rich and the poor (Willetts, 1992, p. 11) ‘One Nation’ Toryism established a line of approach in the Conservative tradition from Disraeli’s thought (Charmley, 1996).

Salisbury might be placed at the other side from Disraeli in Tory tradition (Evans & Taylor, 1996; Willetts, 1992). As the first Conservative leader who faced the massive social change, he set up his political position against the rise of interventionist Liberals and Socialism as a defender of freedom, individual interest, property and social stability. Even though Salisbury accepted the inevitability of transfer to mass democracy, he conceived his role to slow the shift to maintain the order by aristocracy and defend their interest (Evans & Taylor, 1996).

Disraeli and Salisbury show two different lines of Conservative politics in their history. Willetts (1992) summarise traditional conservatism with three character: the commitment to freedom, the principle of freedom to economic management, and acceptance of the welfare state on sound conservative ground. If this is put into a spectrum of conservatism from individual freedom to responsibility of community, Disraeli and Salisbury, each side represent the later (more community value) and the former (more individual interest) in conservatism respectively. So it would be serious misleading to accept one side as a ‘real’ tradition and accuse the other of a heresy.

Evans & Taylor (1996) also indicate that Disraeli and Salisbury shared common ground to prevent social order from its breakdown through the profound social change. The difference between them limited within the method, for example, between ‘sticks and carrots’, rather than direction. Moreover the social order for them means defend of property rights and the basis for individual freedom, which is secured by the property right (Wilson, 1992). This might be the origin of Thatcher’s ‘property-owning democracy’ (Evans & Taylor, 1996)

Wets and drys

This is common view in Conservative politics that there had been a cycle between two different lines of strand in Conservative governments since World War two: followers of Disraelian ‘One Nation’ Toryism, called ‘wets’, and descendants of Salisbury politics as defenders of free market, named ‘drys’ (Evans & Taylor, 1996; Green, 2002; Kavanagh, 1990; Willetts, 1992). Wets are more collectivist, and believe in bigger role of government such as planning or intervention, whereas drys are more neo-liberal, and believe in less government intervention and sound money (Kavanagh, 1990; Willetts, 1992).

Conservative Government started with drys dominance in 1950s. The tone for the Conservative election campaign in 1950-1 focused on the argument that current welfare system was reducing incentives for free-market economy by inappropriate benefit and level of taxation with a catchphrase ‘Set the People Free’ (Green, 2002). The next turning point to the wets appeared between 1957 when Macmillan became Prime Minister and 1958, the beginning of economic recession: introduction of pay pause, establishment of National Economic Development Council including employers, trade union and government followed increase in grant to industry (Willetts, 1992). Consequently the first full spin of the drys-wets cycle had completed when Conservative left the office in 1964.

As a result of successive election defeat against Labour in 1964 and 1966, the Conservative turned against their policies in the office during Macmillan Government and drys was getting more strength while raising the argument of rejection of the social democratic political consensus since World War two (Evans & Taylor, 1996; Gamble, 1983). After crucial policy discussion in the Selsdon Park conference in 1970, which is well-known with sarcastic remark by Harold Wilson ‘Selsdon Man’ referring to stone-age economic thinking, the 1970 manifesto claimed an ambitious free-market reform such as tax cuts, reduction of public expenditure, and declining any price and income control (Green, 2002; Willetts, 1992). However, these radical programmes of drys suddenly faced dramatic ‘U-turn’ when Heath Government was once confronted by rise of unemployment and working-class resistance: return to the prices and income control and increase of public expenditure (Gamble, 1983). Holmes (1989) points out the Heath U-turn policy was even more interventionist against free market than former Labour governments in terms of the radical increase of welfare spending, involvement of trade union in policy process, extension of nationalisation and state control on economics, Keynesian full employment policy, and anti-market measure such as issue of ration cards during energy crisis and comprehensive income policies.

Thatcherism is clearly regarded as a stronger economic liberalism of drys with rejection of wets’ One Nation politics within academics (Holmes, 1989; Jessop, Bonnett, Bromley, & Ling, 1988; Lynch, 1999; Willetts, 1992). Ideological strand of Thatcher Government is often considered as a reaction of the Party against disastrous ends of former Conservative government’s ‘U-turn’ with surge of unemployment rate and successive electoral defeat in 1974 (Evans & Taylor, 1996; Holmes, 1989).

To sum up, in spite of its significance, Thatcherism is evidently placed on the lineage of Conservative politics as discussed through Tory tradition since nineteenth century and drys-wets cycles in the late twentieth. Even though there is some break from former conservatism as it more directly influenced by continental philosophers such as Hayek, or American economics such as Friedman (Willetts, 1992), this should be seen as a new combination of traditional conservatism and free-market liberalism (Wilson, 1992) or part of development of Conservative ideology rather than departure or separation from their traditional politics.

Thatcherism as an ideology

Just as Thatcherism has been one of the most studied themes in British politics as mentioned before, so has widespread disagreement on it been in academics (Evans & Taylor, 1996; Holmes, 1989; Jessop, Bonnett, Bromley, & Ling, 1988). Some commentators has argued the ideological significance of Thatcherism while others expressed their scepticism about it as an ideology. In this study to clarify the ideology of Conservative governments, it would be a vital task to examine their ideological quality. Ideological quality, in this research, means consistency and coherence of their belief and ideas as well as completion of line of reasoning without contradiction within internal conceptual factors composing the whole ideology. It would be discussed first through a range of literatures on Thatcherism to improve the understanding of ideology of Thatcher Government for the later analysis.

Consistency in Thatcherism

There has been various definition and perspectives on Thatcherism between literatures from Thatcherism as an ideological project to personal political quality (for further discussion, see Jessop, Bonnett, Bromley, & Ling, 1988; Kavanagh, 1997). Their evaluations of consistency of Thatcherism tend to be dependent on their approaches. For example, studies defining Thatcherite ideology as a hegemonic project is more likely to focus on great level of coherence of Thatcherism whereas literatures having more interest in pragmatic aspect of politics might not take its consistency as serious as the former ones.

Hall’s (1983) definition of Thatcherism as an ‘authoritarian populism’ could be one of the well-known examples of former approach. He explains it is authoritarian because it is a combination of themes of traditional Toryism such as duty, authority, standards, and nation with the aggressive themes of neo-liberalism such as competitiveness, individualism, and anti-statism. He claims it is also populism as it made populist appeals against high income taxes, welfare-benefit dependents, and poor public service as if they are ‘the enemy of the people’ after the breakdown of Keynesian political economy. This is seen for him as a hegemonic project – deliberate, coherent social engineering started from the economy then moved on to other old institutions established by post-war consensus (Kavanagh, 1997).

A number of commentators interpret Thatcherism as a coherent ideology with combination of different ideological factors as Hall (1983) does. Gamble (1983) defines Thatcherism as a mix of authoritarianism – strong state – and economic liberalism – free market. Holmes (1989) also explains that Thatcherism arose from combative ideological nature – rejection of socialism and engine for free-market economy – and needs for being populist to maintain power in an electoral system. British Gaullism which appealing popular support against national decline; economic liberalism; traditional Toryism including Victorian values such as the virtues of authority, discipline and order; and Thatcher’s political style as a populist and charismatic are different set of combination for Thatcherism in Marquand’s (1988) claim. Even within Conservative commentators, the similar combination is found with more approving manner. Willetts (1992) argues Thatcherism is an amalgam of philosophical tradition embracing community values and Liberal free-market conservatism representing individualism. Jessop, Bonnett, Bromley, & Ling (1988) also accept Thatcherism as a combined ideology of populism and authoritarianism but in different context. In their research, they define Thatcherism as ‘the change strategic line of the Conservative Party as organized under Thatcher leadership’ (p. 5). They argues, in this definition, we should not consider it as an entirely independent and consistent agent nor ignore Thatcher’s personal impact.

If we go further than Jessop, Bonnett, Bromley, & Ling’s (1988) points considering more about environment factors, approaches to Thatcherism which focus more on pragmatic aspects rather than ideological consistency would be reached. Lynch (1999) warns that perspectives seeing Thatcherism as a coherent political project might miss political failures and influence of external factors in it although too sceptical approach could underestimate political significance of Thatcher. He argues ideological account often fail to recognise the importance of strains between neo-liberal, cultural conservative thought, and problematic notion of sovereignty and national identity.

However, the tension between political ideology and external factors is, as stated in Introduction, the part of the themes of this whole study. This should be examined by distinguished analysis of them respectively to find out their relationship as being carried out in this study. So meaning of Thatcherism in this thesis is limited to the ideology of Thatcher and her Government defined by the analysis of her speeches officially presented as a party leader or Prime Minister and party documents under her leadership like ideology of Old and New Labour Governments in other Chapters. Its coherency and consistence could be far clearly tested by the analysis.

Rationality in Thatcherism

As Thatcherism is often defined as a mix of different beliefs, contradiction between them tend to be pointed out as weakness of it as an ideology. It would be another important point for the analysis to clarify conceptual structure of Conservative ideology. Discrepancies in Thatcherism usually criticised are between economic liberalism and authoritarianism; nationalism and anti-statism; and political rhetoric and policy outcomes.

While Gamble (1983) and Hall (1983) see Thatcherism as economic liberalism and authoritarianism as discussed above, they also accuse this as a chief contradictory point of it. They proclaim economic liberalism refers to the freedom from government so it means ‘rolling back’ of government whereas authoritarianism might lead to centralisation of government, i.e. expansion of government control. However, Evans & Taylor (1996) explains strong state is necessary to establish the conditions for transition to the true free market economy in the same way of Marxist fashion, which insists the dictatorship of the proletariat to remove bourgeois horizons for ultimate freedom or emancipation of the people.

The second contradiction relates to the dramatic event during Thatcher Government: the Falklands war. Marquand (1988) and Gamble (1983) indicate that Thatcher used nationalist language such as national pride to mobilise pubic support while, on the other hand trying to cut role of state serving their people. In particular, Marquand (1988) says that the cuts in naval expenditure were carried out as it had been considered before war, the victory in the Falklands war giving greatest triumph and stable position to Thatcher as a Prime Minister would not be achieved. However, government roles expected by left commentators (more social security and intervention on economics) could be different from those by Thatcherism (maintenance of strong defence and order for stable society) as appeared in the later analysis.

Final points of discrepancy in Thatcherism could be found between political rhetoric and its outcomes. When Marsh & Rhodes (in Kavanagh, 1997) concentrate on policy outcomes they found objectives of Thatcher Government in a number of policy areas had not ended up with intended outcomes then conclude that Thatcherism is more a product of rhetoric rather than reality. Marquand (1988) also points out one of the paradox of Thatcher Government that, in spite of anti-statism in Thatcherite ideology, actual proportion of pubic expenditure in the gross domestic product have not been cut. Yet as policy outcome always could be different from its intension by political failure or influence of unexpected external factors and outcome itself – not interpretation of it – cannot be part of political thinking, it would be inappropriate to say ideological contradiction with evidence of policy outcome.

In consequence, former two questions in Thatcherism, except the last one as it is not the issue in political belief, shows important points which should be examined in the study in Thatcherism. Role of these different conceptual elements will be found; and whether they make a consonance or weakness in the whole ideological structure will be explored through the later analysis.

Major Government and their ideology

When Michael Heseltine declared his intention for leadership challenge against Mrs. Thatcher, it was a bad time for her. This follows a number of signs showing her downfall: a series of lost by-election, ‘poll-tax’ riots, and record leads in opinion poll of Labour Party by 20 per cent (Charmley, 1996; Kavanagh, 1997). After surprising resignation of Thatcher during the leadership election in 1990, John Major, who just entered the Parliament at the beginning of Thatcher premiership in 1979 and joined the Cabinet three years ago, became the leader of the Conservative Government as well as Prime Minister.

Position of Major in the ideological terrain of Conservative Party had not been clear and controversial as not only right but also left side of the Party had claimed that he is ‘one of us’ (Dorey, 1999; Gilmour & Garnett, 1997). So it would be crucial to clarify his position for better understanding of ideology of his government in the later analysis. The discussion should begin at the starting point of the controversy, the leadership election in 1990.

One of us?: Major and the leadership election in 1990

One of the obvious reasons how John Major who was relatively weak candidate comparing to others: Michael Heseltine and Douglas Hurd was Thatcher’s support to him as a defender of her legacy (Dorey, 1999; Gilmour & Garnett, 1997; Kavanagh, 1997). This is also one of obvious reason why Major had been believed as a one of Thatcherite. Thatcher won the first ballot with 204 votes against 152 for Heseltine, but Thatcher failed to avoid second ballot due to four short of the requisite fifteen per cent of majority. As there was no clear majority to secure the wining the second ballot, Mrs. Thatcher had to stand down to protect her legacy and prevent a Heseltine succession then she made it publicly known that Major, her Chancellor of the Exchequer was her choice for the Party leadership (Gilmour & Garnett, 1997; Kavanagh, 1997). Having got the strong support from Thatcher, Major could won the election with 185 vote mainly by right wing of the Party, while votes from left side in the Party divided to Heseltine’s 131 and Hurd’s 56 (Dorey, 1999). The majority was still not enough to win outright under the rule but the victory of Major was confirmed as Heseltine conceded his defeat.

Apart from Thatcher’s choice, there was the other reason how Major won the election. Heseltine, the major contender on the other side, had a clear hostility from Thatcherite side as he left the Cabinet in 1985 while protesting about her leadership; made it clear that he was pro-European and believed more active role of government in opposition to Thatcherite policies; and he stood to challenge Thatcher for the leadership of the Conservative Party at the first place (Kavanagh, 1997). On the other hand, Major did not have any kind of hostility. On the contrary, as mentioned, he is believed ‘one of us’ from both sides. At the time few MPs were aware of Major’s view on many issues and looked like ‘everyone’s bank manager’ as widely known remark from Labour (Charmley, 1996; Kavanagh, 1997).

So it would be more appropriate to say that Thatcher chose Major not because he was true believer of Thatcherism but because ‘there is no alternative (TINA)’. She could not chose Heseltine with obvious reason nor Hurd because of his old association with Ted Heath who had been major and severe critics against her premiership (Gilmour & Garnett, 1997) as well as his aristocratic and paternalist ‘One Nation’ conservatism which was the opposite side of her political position (Kavanagh, 1997). Eventually, Major was the only option for her to minimise the damage on her legacy as much as possible.

Major Government and Thatcherism

No matter how Major’s ambiguity, his victory in the election was extremely welcomed by Mrs. Thatcher yet he was attacked by Thatcherite conservatives including Thatcher herself just three weeks later over his decision to give Heseltine a post in the Cabinet and plan to replace the Poll Tax (Gilmour & Garnett, 1997). It was just the beginning. Thatcher accepted presidencies of a couple of anti-Major groups in the Party such as the Euro-sceptical ‘Bruges Group’ and ‘Conservative Way Forward’ in 1991 (Evans & Taylor, 1996). Furthermore, Major was challenged for the leadership of the Party in 1995 by the Welsh Secretary, John Redwood who was one of the most prominent spokesmen within right wing groups (Kavanagh, 1997). Although Major won the election by 218 votes to 89 for Redwood with 20 abstentions or spoilt ballots, it was understood as a warning from the Thatcherites not to be far from her legacy (Charmley, 1996).

This successive conflict with Thatcherites could be one of the main reasons why Major politics had been believed as a break with Thatcherism. Dorey (1999) provides five more reasons why he was initially considered as a ‘One Nation’ Conservative: his own claim that he was a ‘social liberal’ (not ‘social authoritarian’); his aim stated in his early speeches to create ‘a country that is at ease with itself’ (not divided like under Thatcher premiership); assumption by leftist Conservatives that 1990 leadership election meant a departure from Thatcherism; Major’s conciliatory and affable characteristic, which is regarded as a typical leadership style of leftist Conservatives; and a humble social background of Major who left school with few qualification and have not attended any university.

However, the conflict between Major and Thatcherite Conservatives had been mostly over Europe. The debate over the government policy on European integration began under Thatcher (Charmley, 1996). But it grow to the major contention within the Party in 1990s as Maastricht Treaty was signed and Britain disastrously exited from the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) membership after $ 10 billion spent in vain defence its pound (Gilmour & Garnett, 1997). Conservative dissent over Europe was not simple reflection of drys-wets division (Kavanagh, 1997). It tended to be more complex controversy highly depending on progress in Europe and its effect on Britain. Even Thatcher Government had been pro-Europe as initially European Community was viewed as an economic union for free single market then turned to be hostile to Europe by growing fear that emerging European super-state would treat Britain’s sovereignty (Kavanagh, 1997). So this issue might be an improper criterion to discuss ideological position of the government.

In addition, other differences between Major and Thatcher are mostly of personality and style rather than substance (Dorey, 1999; Kavanagh, 1997). It is widely accepted conclusion in academics that Major government had been a continuity of Thatcher rather than a break (Dorey, 1999; Evans & Taylor, 1996; Gilmour & Garnett, 1997; Kavanagh, 1997; Lynch, 1999; Pascall, 1997). Ideology of Major government is even indicated ‘Thatcherism without Thatcher’ (Dorey, 1999, p. 226), with a range of Thatcherite policies: privatisation, tax cuts, abolishing wage council, and curbing the trade unions’ legal immunities (Dorey, 1999; Gilmour & Garnett, 1997; Kavanagh, 1997).

However, this verdict largely base on policy of Major Government rather than analysis of belief and ideas of his government. As mentioned in the last section, evaluation of policies and ideology is different stories because there are a number of political issues between them such as discussion of agency and context (for detail see Introduction). This is the reason why the relationship of them is part of this study. So appropriate comparison of ideology between Thatcher and Major Governments could be only conducted by direct analysis of their political belief and ideas.

Their ideology will be clarified through the analysis of official speeches of Thatcher and Major as leader of the Party and election manifestos under their leadership. The speeches are considered as a major source to define ideology of their government basing on Westminster Model discussed in Introduction. This could be also justified in the culture of the Conservative Party such as top down, significance of the power and influence of the party leader, and strong loyalty to successful leader (and ruthlessness to failed one) (Ball & Holliday, 2002; Holmes, 1989; Riddell, 1985; Willetts, 1992). The extent of speeches of Thatcher for the analysis covers from 1975 when she was elected as a leader of the Conservative Party to 1990 when she resigned. Analysis of Major’s includes those from 1990 when he became a Prime Minister to 1997 in which he left the office. The Convective Party Manifestos in 1979, 1983, and 1987 under Thatcher leadership and in 1992 under Major premiership are also added for the analysis. The full list of speeches and documents are represented in Appendix I. The analysis conducted with criteria defined in Chapter 1.

Challenges to contemporary society

Following former Labour Government, Thatcher and Major era was also dominated by economic difficulties. A circle of failed attempts to curb unemployment and revive economic prosperity followed came behind failures to control inflation became recurrent (Wilson, 1992). By the end of 1960s, the economy had fallen into full-scale recession (Hall, 1983) and the collapse of the Bretton Woods exchange rate system and the oil crisis of 1973 and 1979 made it deeper (Ellison, 2000). so domestic politics has been preoccupied by management of economic crisis (Hall, 1983).

The key difference of Thatcher and Major Governments was its interpretation. Although they indicated world recession and challenges from new industrialising countries in the Far East as external factors, excessive state control and power of trade union had been largely blamed as a core factors to sustained economic difficulties or made it much worse. Cold war between West and East world had been considered as a prime threat to Britain, and climate change was recognised potential but vital threat to the world.

Economic difficulties: inflation and unemployment

At the moments when Margaret Thatcher became the leader of the opposition and the Prime Minister as well as John Major came to the office, economic problem was identified a main problem:

What is the challenge of our time? I believe there are two-to overcome the country's economic and financial problems, and to regain our confidence in Britain and ourselves (Thatcher, 1975a).

When we came to office in May 1979, our country was suffering both from an economic crisis and a crisis of morale. British industry was uncompetitive, over-taxed, over-regulated and over-manned. The British economy was plagued by inflation (Conservative Party, 1983).

On the left hand side, under “problems”, I had written:

-inflation

-interest rates

-unemployment

November 1990. Inflation was almost 11 per cent. Interest rates were stuck at 14 per cent. And unemployment was rising fast (Major, 1994a).

Inflation and unemployment had been appeared as paramount phenomenon to make the difficulties apparent. Inflation, in particular, had been indicated as a fundamental problem not only to cause economic trouble but also to destroy jobs, people’s saving, so their hopes, moral, and independence, and even democracy itself:

When inflation runs riot, it is not simply cash that is carried away in suitcases, it is trust and honesty as well (Thatcher, 1982a).

Why are we Conservatives so opposed to inflation? Only because it puts up prices? No, because it destroys the value of people's savings. Because it destroys jobs, and with it people's hopes. That's what the fight against inflation is all about.(Thatcher, 1986b)

Our greatest economic challenge on entering office was to defeat inflation. … Nothing erodes a country's competitive edge faster than inflation. Nothing so undermines personal thrift and independence as to see the value of a lifetime's savings eaten away in retirement through spiralling prices. And nothing threatens the social fabric of a nation more than the conflicts and divisiveness which inflation creates (Conservative Party, 1987).

No society can be fair or stable when inflation eats up savings and devalues the pound in everyone's pocket. Inflation threatens democracy itself (Thatcher, 1987b).

When inflation rises, so do bankruptcies. When inflation falls, industry can plan again for a profitable future. Inflation creates strife, as different groups in society struggle to restore their living standards. It destroys jobs. It erodes savings and social benefits and threatens our currency (Conservative Party, 1992).

Inflation had been also the problem to keep the Conservative Governments annoyed until their last term. Even after it was once curbed, it had been always under caution by the end in the office:

We took our eye off the ball. We allowed inflation to creep back. People who had worked hard, who had borrowed money to start businesses or buy houses were caught up in it (Major, 1993b).

We will keep inflation firmly under control (Major, 1996a).

Unemployment was also pointed out one of the most devastating factor for economy. It was defined as a ‘the greatest unsolved problem of our time’ (Thatcher, 1982a) and ‘the most intractable’ (Conservative Party, 1983) nuisance. Firstly, policies under former Labour Government were blamed for it:

One of the reasons why this Labour Government has incurred more unemployment than any Conservative Government since the War is because they have concentrated too much on distributing what we have, and too little on seeing that we have more (Thatcher, 1975b).

The answer is not bogus social contracts and government overspending. Both, in the end, destroy jobs (Conservative Party, 1983).

During the last four years, unemployment in the industrialised countries has risen more sharply than at any time since the 1930s. Britain has been no exception. We have long been one of the least efficient and most over-manned of industrialised nations. We raised our own pay far more, and our output far less, than most of our competitors (Conservative Party, 1983).

However, as unemployment rate had not fallen under Conservative Government, other factors had been accused of the causes. Sharp increase in working population was one of them:

Mr. President, it's going to take a long time to get employment up sufficiently, to get unemployment down as far as we all want. The task is even harder because we are going through a phase in Britain when the number of people of working age is rising. … So even without the recession we should have needed a lot more new jobs just to stop the number of unemployed rising. That shows you the magnitude of the task (Thatcher, 1982b).

… first, more jobs are being created. As Tom King pointed out, over the last year more than a quarter of a million extra jobs have been created, but the population of working age is also rising very fast as the baby boom of the 1960s becomes the school-leavers of the 1980s; so although the number of jobs are rising, the population of working age is also rising, and among the population of working age a larger proportion of married women are seeking work, and so you will see why we need more jobs just to stop unemployment rising and even more jobs to get it falling (Thatcher, 1984b).

But the number of jobs is increasing. But the fact is … the new jobs are not yet coming fast enough because there are still more people entering the workforce (Thatcher, 1985).

The other factor to contribute to increase in unemployment is appeared to be technological advance and industrial change following it:

… there has been a rapid shift of jobs from the old industries to the new, concentrated on services and the new technologies (Conservative Party, 1983).

Now, on top of that, new technology has caused redundancy in many factories, though it has also created whole new industries providing products and jobs that only a few years ago were undreamed of (Thatcher, 1984b).

At the end of Major premiership, the situation of unemployment is seen to be improved:

We set out to create jobs. And we are succeeding. Unemployment is lower here than in any comparable country in Europe. In Britain it is falling (Major, 1996b).

The causes within: state control and trade union

As partly mentioned above, state intervention and trade union had been indicated core domestic cause of economic difficulties. They are blamed for inflation, low economic growth, high cost, and less competitiveness of national economy:

The unions win pay awards their members have not earned. The company pays out increases it cannot afford. The prices to the customer go up. Government print the money to make it all possible and everyone congratulates them on their success as an honest broker, with or without beer and sandwiches at Number Ten. It has been happening for years. The result has been the most uncompetitive industry, the lowest economic growth rate and the highest rate of inflation in the industrialised world (Thatcher, 1979a).

State had bee described as an object which was decreasing efficiency by occupying too many resources, destroying incentive of success by tax, causing inflation by borrowing and spending money too much, damaging traditional value by excessive regulation, and increasing people’s dependency by monopoly of decision:

… the government share of the Gross National Product has steadily got higher and it's been higher than in Britain than in most other countries and today the state controls well over half our National Income. … what I am describing is the actual experience of thirty years of concentrating on distribution, too much, really at the price of not putting enough into the growth of the economy and creating wealth. And so you can see that we've had problems really brought about by transferring far too much from the private sector into the public sector (Thatcher, 1975a).

… if you're going to take the heart out of people by taking away so much of them [sic] in tax, you will find very quickly that you will not have the incentive to get the extra growth (Thatcher, 1975a).

I believe there are several reasons for what is known as ‘the British sickness’-and they are not a criticism of the people of this country. They are a criticism of the Government of this country. First, we have become the big spenders of Europe-spenders of other countries' money. … Under Labour the land of hope and glory has become the land of beg and borrow. … Secondly, increasing interference and direction of industry have stopped it doing its job properly. … They have destroyed profits (Thatcher, 1976b).

The Government has been borrowing vast sums of money, both within Britain and overseas. But even these borrowings were not enough. The Government turned to printing money in order to finance a public sector deficit that neither taxpayers nor lenders would finance in full. With a huge rise in the money supply, hyper-inflation became a real threat: … Traditional values are also threatened by increasing State regulation. The more the State seeks to impose its authority, the less respect that authority receives. The more living standards are squeezed by taxation, the greater is the temptation to evade that taxation. The more pay and prices are controlled, the more those controls are evaded. In short, where the State is too powerful, efficiency suffers and morality is threatened (Thatcher, 1977a).

They have made things worse in three ways. First, by practising the politics of envy and by actively discouraging the creation of wealth, … Second, by enlarging the role of the State and diminishing the role of the individual, they have crippled the enterprise and effort on which a prosperous country with improving social services depends (Conservative Party, 1979).

But it is not the State that creates a healthy society. When the State grows too powerful people feel that they count for less and less. The State drains society, not only of its wealth but of initiative, of energy, the will to improve and innovate as well as to preserve what is best (Thatcher, 1980b).

Competition is better for the consumer than State control (Thatcher, 1982b).

Every time the Government tries to plan too much it is physically unable to make the decisions, and if it were physically able to make them its judgment would sadly be wrong. It would meddle and stop the people who are capable of regenerating the future from doing so (Thatcher, 1988b).

Who has made people dependent? We have. By ‘we’, I mean Governments, planners, those who think wrongly that they have a monopoly of wisdom (Major, 1992c).

It's Whitehall. And town hall. Everyone likes to tie another knot. Good intentions - bad results. Piling costs on industry. Mr President, that has got to stop (Major, 1992b).

Trade union had been partly blamed for the responsibility to encourage excessive state intervention for their own interest. Trade union itself had not been denied with saying that ‘a strong and responsible trade union movement is essential to this country and its rights must be respected’ (Thatcher, 1977c) and ‘a strong and responsible trade union movement could play a big part in our economic recovery’ (Conservative Party, 1979). Yet ‘irresponsible’ trade union movement had been described like ‘enemy of the society’ making people suffer, destroying jobs, threatening individual freedom, and ruining Britain’s chances of success:

It apparently allowed a handful of trade union leaders to dictate to the Government the level of public spending, the number of industries to be nationalised, what the tax system should be, the terms on which we can borrow from the IMF-and so on and so on (Thatcher, 1976b).

The real conflict would be between Union and people. Because it would be the people that would suffer. It always is (Thatcher, 1977c).

by heaping privilege without responsibility on the trade unions, Labour have given a minority of extremists the power to abuse individual liberties and to thwart Britain's chances of success (Conservative Party, 1979).

… this tiny group decided to use its undoubted power for what?-to delay Britain's recovery, which all our people long to see (Thatcher, 1982c).

What a tragedy it is when striking miners attack their workmates. Not only are they members of the same union, but the working miner is saving both their futures, because … it is the working miners who have kept faith with those who buy our coal and without that custom thousands of jobs in the mining industry would be already lost (Thatcher, 1984b).

Why have we limited the power of trade unions? Only to improve productivity? No, because trade union members, want to be protected from intimidation and to go about their daily lives in peace-like everyone else in the land (Thatcher, 1986b).

We have also legislated five times to transform industrial relations, returning power from militants to ordinary union members (Conservative Party, 1992)

We'll be fighting to strengthen the rights of ordinary trade union members. … They must have freedom to join the union of their choice - and fairness in union ballots and finances (Major, 1992b).

The causes without: world recession and globalisation

Economic difficulties had been, as discussed, sustained throughout Conservative Governments over decade that had withdrawn state control and moderated power of trade union. So other external factors had been demonstrated for them. Consecutive world economic recession had been one of them while inefficiency of Britain’s economy by unrestrained government intervention had been blamed to make its hit on the economy more damaging:

… the world also has serious economic problems. Recession has hit the industries of many countries … It has hit Britain at a time when years of low profits, of wage increases unmatched by productivity, of restrictive practices which denied a proper return on investment, have left firms ill-fitted to face hard times (Thatcher, 1980b).

Its origins go deep; but the 1970s were dominated by three things: persistent inflation, the oil price increase and great shifts in the pattern of world trade (Thatcher, 1981b).

Here at home, we have felt keenly the chill winds of world recession, a recession which darkens the whole globe (Thatcher, 1982a).

There are 2- million people out of work in the OECD countries. Every country in Western Europe has been hit by the recession. … And the recession hit us harder because we were more inefficient. Pay had gone up regardless of output. Inflation was among the highest in the Western world-and we were bedevilled by strikes and restrictive practices (Thatcher, 1983a).

… while these things [new technologies] may have contributed to the speed with which the markets fell, we must look elsewhere for an underlying cause: to the uncertainties stemming from the continuing budget and trade deficits of the United States; to the persistent trade surpluses of Japan and Germany; to the resulting fear of protectionism; and to the fear of returning inflation (Thatcher, 1987a).

The world economy is showing greater strain now than it has for a decade (Major, 1992a).

But today even the world's most successful economies face difficulties. In the United States. In Japan. Throughout Europe - yes, and in Germany, too. (Major, 1992b)

Globalising economy and technical advance had been seen as a one of contributing factors to Western recession through growing challenges from newly developing countries. They were appeared as new flourishing opportunities initially, but, in the course of time, they had been considered as unavoidable risk or threat must be overcome to survive:

By the end of the 19th century the expansion of world trade, technological progress, and a revolution in communications, made it possible to speak of one world as well as one nation. … But even more, trade has been a great engine of post war growth. All have gained from the greater freedom of trade and payments. Freer trade has meant lower prices, more competition and faster growth. And every consumer has benefited (Thatcher, 1981b).

Whether we like it or not, things are changing. They are changing in technology (Thatcher, 1982b).

Every country has been hit by the competition from the newly industrialised countries of the Far East. Every country has lost jobs in the transition from the old industries to the new technologies (Thatcher, 1983a).

The whole industrial world, not just Britain, is seeing change at a speed that our forebears never contemplated, much of it due to new technology. Old industries are declining.(Thatcher, 1986b)

Markets are global. Trade is global. So every major country must be prepared to take the necessary action to secure a sounder balance in the world economy (Thatcher, 1987a).

The opportunities in the 1990s will be unprecedented, so will the competition, not least from Eastern Europe, the Pacific Rim and even South America. … The competitive atmosphere will be unforgiving and the lesson to be drawn from that is unmissable (Major, 1991a).

We live in a harsh and competitive world today - the most competitive decade we've ever known. And unless we're able to compete we'll face a harsh future (Major, 1992a).

We have to operate in the most competitive world we have ever seen (Major, 1993a).

At present, Europe, our biggest market, is stuck deep in recession. It’s held back by social costs it can’t afford. It’s losing markets to Japan and to America and to the Pacific Basin (Major, 1993b).

External threat: cold war and environment

Conflict between West and East bloc had been indicated the most vital and fundamental threat to Britain until the collapse of communist bloc in 1989. Thatcher’s initial strong and antagonistic comments to the Soviet Union are well-known and this was the place she got her another name ‘the iron lady’:

But just let's look at what the Russians are doing. … They are not doing this solely for the sake of self-defence. … The Russians are bent on world dominance, and they are rapidly acquiring the means to become the most powerful imperial nation the world has seen (Thatcher, 1976a).

The dangers to it are greater now than they have ever been since 1945. The threat of the Soviet Union is ever present. … The Soviet forces are organised and trained for attack.(Thatcher, 1979a)

Soviet Marxism is ideologically, politically and morally bankrupt. But militarily the Soviet Union is a powerful and growing threat. (Thatcher, 1980b)

We face in the Soviet Union a Power whose declared aim is to "bury" Western civilisation (Thatcher, 1981a).

The invasion of Afghanistan and the suppression of dissent in Poland remind us of the true nature of the Soviet Union.(Thatcher, 1982a)

However, her tone was getting down as the negotiation for mutual disbarment started. She explained its necessity and welcomed its progress. Eventually, when the Soviet bloc collapsed she praise prevalence of freedom and declared the end of Cold War:

In the weeks and months ahead we shall watch the new Soviet leadership earnestly for solid evidence of a willingness to work for genuine multilateral disarmament (Thatcher, 1982a).

… whatever we think of the Soviet Union, Soviet Communism cannot be disinvented. We have to live together on the same planet and that is why, when the circumstances are right, we must be ready to talk to the Soviet leadership. … a major element in that dialogue must be arms control (Thatcher, 1983b).

Why then is it that we in the West seek to negotiate? For two powerful reasons:

- because the destruction and devastation of conflict would be so terrible for East and West alike that it must never happen, and

- because both sides want to spend more on the well being of their people and less on the weapons of war, but can only do so if each can secure its own defence.(Thatcher, 1984a)

When President Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev meet in Washington they will sign a Treaty which, for the first time ever, will reduce nuclear weapons. … It is good for our security and it is an important step towards a more peaceful and stable world. … Soviet leaders now recognise that only greater open-ness, greater enterprise, more personal responsibility will bring the higher standards of living that the Soviet people want (Thatcher, 1987a).

The messages on our banners in 1979-freedom, opportunity, family, enterprise, ownership-are now inscribed on the banners in Leipzig, Warsaw, Budapest and even Moscow (Thatcher, 1989b).

We do not see this new Soviet Union as an enemy, but as a country groping its way towards freedom. We no longer have to view the world through a prism of East-West relations. The Cold War is over (Thatcher, 1990c).

On the other hand, even after the collapse of communist bloc Thatcher warned military conflict and threat were not disappeared. Moreover Major repeatedly emphasised there was risk and danger by the increased instability by the collapse and conflicts in other world:

Mr President, in today's rapidly changing world you never know where conflict may arise (Thatcher, 1989b).

The republics of what was the Soviet Union have a chance to join the Western familiy of democracies but there is a risk, a risk that they could fall into a dark abyss of political conflict and economic hardship (Major, 1991a).

But let me also be blunt. There are still dangers ahead. The future is uncertain. The collapse of Communism has brought great opportunities. … But there is still dangerous instability (Major, 1992a).

Today the threat of a massive surprise attack from Eastern Europe has gone. But we still face grave risks to our security. … Within the former Soviet Union there remains a huge military force. Democracy and the rule of law are yet to be firmly established. Control over these armed forces and the massive nuclear capability is uncertain. The events in Yugoslavia show what can happen when Communism collapses in disorder. Increasingly threats come from outside Europe - as we saw so clearly in the Gulf. Many more countries are acquiring large stocks of modern arms. Some are trying to obtain nuclear, biological and chemical weapons (Conservative Party, 1992).

Now the cold war is over, but while the threat was there … (Major, 1994b)

Currently, when new Conservative leader David Cameron raises environmental issues as his central agenda to renew the Party, it is considered as a move of ideological position of the Conservative Party to the centre. However, interestingly, it was Mrs. Thatcher, who is clearly recognised far right position even within the Party who raised climate change issue in United Nation at the end of 1980s in the name of ‘Conservative’. Major also kept this issue in his agenda:

Given our record, we are well placed to take the lead with other Governments in practical efforts to protect the wider world. We will work with them to end the destruction of the world's forests. We shall direct more of our overseas aid to help poor countries to protect their trees and plant new ones. We will join with others to seek further protection of the ozone layer-that global skin which protects life itself from ultra violet radiation. We will work to cut down the use of fossil fuels, a cause of both acid rain and the greenhouse effect (Thatcher, 1988c).

Mr President, when I spoke to the Royal Society about the environment over a year ago, I spoke about the global threat of climate change. I set out the magnitude of the challenge we face. Until recently, we have always thought that whatever progress humanity makes, our planet would stay much the same. That may no longer be true. … They threaten to change the atmosphere above us and the sea around us. That is the scale of the global challenge (Thatcher, 1989b).

Science is still feeling its way and some uncertainties remain. But we know that very high population growth is putting an enormous pressure on the earth's resources. Primitive methods of agriculture are extending deserts and destroying tropical forests and as they disappear, nature's capacity to correct its own imbalance is seriously affected. We know, too, that our industries and way of life have done severe damage to the ozone layer. … Spending on the environment is like spending on defence-if you do not do it in time, it may be too late (Thatcher, 1990c).

One of the most important issues facing all countries is the threat of global warming. Effective action to combat global warming must be international action (Conservative Party, 1992).

Objectives

First of all ‘equality’, which was one of the dual goals in former Labour Government together with economic prosperity, was clearly denied as objective of Conservative Governments by Thatcher and Major. Aspiration for it was described to damage economic strength and people’s welfare and indicated as an illusion that could not be achieved:

The promotion of greater equality, of course, goes hand-in-hand with the extension of the Welfare State and state control over people's lives. … Now, how far has that process strengthened the economy? Because, if it hasn't strengthened the economy, you haven't the means to carry on, let alone improve your welfare (Thatcher, 1975a).

We are all unequal. No one, thank heavens, is like anyone else, however much the Socialists may pretend otherwise. We believe that everyone has the right to be unequal but to us every human being is equally important (Thatcher, 1975b).

No government can ensure equality. The road to the Communist state is paved with such fallacies … (Thatcher, 1979b)

Equality not of opportunity, but of outcome. This was a mania that condemned children to fall short of their potential; that treated them as if they were identical - or must be made so (Major, 1991b).

Then ‘Freedom’ and ‘prosperity’ had been stated as a new set of political objectives for Conservative politics:

What we have been concerned with is how we can tackle this crisis, how we can ensure the prosperity, the freedom-yes-and the honour of Britain (Thatcher, 1976b).

We shall do all that a government can to rebuild a free and prosperous Britain (Thatcher, 1978a).

What in the end are the objectives of the States which have come to make up the Community? The three most important are international peace and justice, economic prosperity and freedom under the law (Thatcher, 1979a)

… we are also respected because we stand up for the cause of freedom and the spread of prosperity throughout the world (Conservative Party, 1983).

Together we are building One Nation of free, prosperous and responsible families and people. A Conservative dream is at last becoming a reality (Conservative Party, 1987).

Nearly ten years in Government-and a resurgence of freedom and prosperity without parallel (Thatcher, 1988c).

Freedom and opportunity

Freedom had been the value most frequently appeared in Thatcher’s speeches and described as an ultimate goal of the society which was a undeniable destiny of politics in nature because it was a part of human nature itself, as well as a foundation of society must be protected because it was a base of human dignity and moral society:

.. each citizen can develop his full potential, both for his own benefit and for the community as a whole, a society in which originality, skill, energy and thrift are rewarded, in which we encourage rather than restrict the variety and richness of human nature (Thatcher, 1975a).

We need a free economy not only for the renewed material prosperity it will bring, but because it is indispensable to individual freedom, human dignity and to a more just, more honest society. We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the State is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the State (Thatcher, 1977a).

We believe in political freedom as providing the only framework within which men and women can live lives worthy of their talents and of their human dignity (Thatcher, 1977b).

Free men recognise the limits placed on their freedom by the needs of others. They know that the problems of their neighbours cannot be ignored (Thatcher, 1979c).

All our economic interests, all our moral and spiritual needs reach out for freedom (Thatcher, 1981b).

… if political freedom, economic efficiency, and individual vitality were lost, then humanity would enter its darkest age (Thatcher, 1982a).

And we bring a new chance to the nation to fulfil its destiny-a free people, a great people, proud of their past, ready to adapt to the future.[fo 2] This is a broad and noble aim (Thatcher, 1983a).

For it is by force of ideas, not by force of weapons, that we seek to bring to others that freedom to choose which is fundamental to the dignity of man (Thatcher, 1984a).

Britain fought then to uphold freedom, democracy and Western civilisation itself (Thatcher, 1985).

We believe that individuals have a right to liberty that no state can take away (Thatcher, 1988c).

As found in quotations above, freedom in Thatcher’s speeches covered various meanings. It sometimes referred to freedom under the law, and political freedom while mainly meant freedom of choice and economic freedom:

We who believe in the one true freedom-freedom under the law … (Thatcher, 1979a)

Modern liberty rests upon three pillars. They are representative democracy; economic freedom; and the rule of law (Thatcher, 1979c).

At the basis of the Community's economic arrangements lies the principle of economic freedom. By this I mean the market economy, the free movement of capital, goods and people-all within a framework of just laws (Thatcher, 1979c).

At the heart of our belief is the principle of freedom, under a rule of law. Freedom that gives a man room to breathe, to take responsibility, to make his own decisions and to chart his own course (Thatcher, 1989b).

We must enshrine certain freedoms for every individual:[fo 6] - freedom

- of speech

- of worship

- of access to the law

-and of the market place; - freedom

- to participate in genuinely democratic elections

- to own property

- to maintain nationhood; and last - freedom

- from fear of an over-mighty state (Thatcher, 1990c).

Economic liberty even appeared having a highest priority and superiority than others:

It is economic liberty that nourishes the enterprise of those whose hard work and imagination ultimately determine the conditions in which we live. It is economic liberty that makes possible a free press. It is economic liberty that has enabled the modern democratic state to provide a decent minimum of welfare for the citizen, while leaving him free to choose when, where, and how he will make his own contribution to the economic life of the country. … We should never cease to proclaim the superior virtues of systems based on economic liberty (Thatcher, 1979c).

Freedom was not only political end for Thatcher but also means to achieve the other goals: prosperity. Freedom was explained that it was a necessary condition to make incentive for people to create wealth:

we want a free economy, not only because it guarantees our liberties, but also because it is the best way of creating wealth and prosperity for the whole country (Thatcher, 1975b).

We also believe in economic freedom, because the evidence shows that a free economic system provides the individual and the community with the best hope of that material prosperity which is the legitimate aim of our peoples (Thatcher, 1977b).

The great surges of progress and prosperity in this country did not come directly from Government action. They were not based on national plans. They came from free men, working in a free society, where they could deploy their talents to their best advantage for themselves, for their countries and for the future (Thatcher, 1983b).

Tory freedom works. People have more money in their pockets-to spend or to save. You've only got to look at the supermarkets and shopping centres to see that living standards are higher than ever before in our history. Britain is prosperous again (Thatcher, 1987c).

Only a free people and a free economy have the capacity to meet new challenges, create new activities and find new solutions (Thatcher, 1990a).

Opportunity was another value presented as a political aim in Thatcher and Major Governments. It appeared occasionally in initial speeches but it was Major who liked to use it as an end in his speeches along with freedom:

What's more desireable and more practicable than the pursuit of equality is the pursuit of equality of opportunity (Thatcher, 1975a).

… our Party is the Party of equality of opportunity … (Thatcher, 1975b)

I should like to live in a world where opportunity is for everyone, where peace is truly universal, and where freedom is secure (Major, 1991c).

We believe that only the best is good enough for Britain, and that the best will only be accomplished if we give the British people the freedom and the opportunity they need to succeed (Conservative Party, 1992).

Now we must spread freedom and opportunity ever wider and ever deeper (Major, 1992c).

That's what Conservative Governments are for. To extend choice to parents. To extend freedoms to trades union members. Give new rights to tenants. More opportunities for people to own their own homes. More chance for parents to know how their children are doing at school (Major, 1993a).

In the game of life, we Tories should even up the rules; and give people opportunity and choice, to open up an avenue of hope in their lives. And by ‘people’ I do not mean ‘some people’. I mean everyone. Opportunity for all (Major, 1996b).

Opportunity for all: the next Conservative Government is for them, as much as for anyone else (Major, 1997)

However, as these equations shows, the word ‘opportunity’ seems to be almost interchangeable word with ‘freedom’. Opportunity meant nothing without freedom in Thatcher’s term. For Major, just as opportunity had been described opportunity to choose, opportunity to earn and opportunity to prosper, so did freedom, freedom to choose, freedom to earn and freedom to prosper. There was not a substantial difference between two concepts:

… opportunity means nothing unless it includes the right to be unequal and the freedom to be different (Thatcher, 1975a).

A society of opportunity where people can better themselves and their families by their own efforts. A Britain that puts people in control of their own lives, to exercise their own choices in their own time, in their own way (Major, 1990).

What we can do is five everyone a better opportunity to make the most of their lives. That is one more reason why we will continue to ensure people keep more of what they earn (Major, 1992c).

Prosperity and ownership

Prosperity had been stated as the other political objective of Thatcher and Major Governments. Prosperity meant for them establishment of healthy society, fulfilment of people’s aspiration, and improvement of quality of life:

… our vision and our aims go far beyond the complex arguments of economics, but unless we get the economy right we shall deny our people the opportunity to share that vision and to see beyond the narrow horizons of economic necessity. Without a healthy economy we cannot have a healthy society. Without a healthy society the economy will not stay healthy for long (Thatcher, 1980b).

This Government, this Government of principle, are seeking the common consent of the people of Britain to work together for the prosperity that has eluded us for so long (Thatcher, 1981a).

… our vision is about much more than ownership and material things. We seek a world in which individuals can aspire to their own particular greatness. Where the quality of life is improved by the changed attitudes that prosperity and ownership can bring (Thatcher, 1985).

For the first time in a generation this country looks forward to an era of real prosperity and fulfilment (Conservative Party, 1987).

Our ambitions are - as they ever were - the ambitions of millions. To build a prosperous Britain (Major, 1993a).

Only Conservatives can deliver and build on Britain’s stability and prosperity (Major, 1996a).

Moreover prosperity, like freedom, did not stop at the ultimate end. It was also a precondition to make other things possible such as better public service in health, education and social security, job creation, generosity of society and, eventually, more freedom:

… prosperity for the whole country. It is this prosperity alone which can give us the resources for better services for the community, better services for those in need (Thatcher, 1975b).

Expansion-leading to more jobs. Expansion-leading to higher wages. Expansion-leading eventually to more resources for the nation, so that we can have the same standards of social services as our more successful competitors enjoy (Thatcher, 1976b).

Only if we create wealth can we continue to do justice to the old and the sick and the disabled. It is economic success which will provide the surest guarantee of help for those who need it most (Conservative Party, 1983).

… now prosperity and having a stake in the future are not materialistic: because prosperity and a stake are bed rocks for improving the quality of life. … But you know, you have got to provide money to look after ... the old, the sick and the disabled in a more generous way. … They are the means through which we give voluntarily to those great charitable causes, which are so much a feature of our national life; they are the means to help others in the Third World whose plight is flashed so vividly onto our television screens. And didn't our people give so generously and wonderfully in the way in which it has become our custom to give. They are the means by which we exercise choice; and choice is the essence of liberty (Thatcher, 1985).

Founded on this new prosperity, we are building a better Health Service and providing more care for those in need. Living standards are higher than ever before. Our people have the protection of a stronger defence and more police (Conservative Party, 1987).

The prosperity brought about by our policies offers a wider choice to more people than ever before. … Our Government has made enormous increases in the amount spent on social welfare to help the less fortunate-and so have individuals. As prosperity has increased, so the fundamental generosity of our people has prompted far more personal giving (Thatcher, 1988c).

… with it [ownership] goes wealth creation, which is the only way to provide for those who need help. Wealth creation and welfare hand in hand - those are the central pillars of the Tory temple (Major, 1992a).

Ownership was another word stated as a political goal in Thatcher’s and Major’s speeches such as ownership of property, shares in industry, and savings. Ownership appeared as what prosperity of Britain meant to ordinary people rather than a different political aim from prosperity as you could find in following quotations. In other words, people can get real benefit from national prosperity by earning and owning more:

Under a Conservative Government we hope that more of them will own a stake in industry and that more of them will own their own homes (Thatcher, 1977c).

… you will see that we have carried forward the historic task of all governments that love liberty, of extending ownership of property more and more widely among our people (Thatcher, 1983a).

The great political reform of the last century was to enable more and more people to have a vote. Now the great Tory reform of this century is to enable more and more people to own property (Thatcher, 1986b).

Now look at Conservatism in practice. This Conservative Government has been engaged in a crusade to bring property within the reach of every family in the land. Our dream is that what was once a privilege of the few, should be the expectation of the many (Thatcher, 1987c).

When I first came into politics we were talking about a property owning democracy and a capital owning democracy. The actual spread of capital, which I want ever-more widely, has not gone only in houses but in savings accounts and shares (Thatcher, 1988b).

The past 200 years has been the story of the evolution of democracy. The progressive extension of the franchise. The extension of wealth. The extension of choice. In the 1990s, I want the privilege of ownership and the luxury. I want then to be for all (Major, 1992c).

‘Classless society’ and ‘a nation ease with itself’

It has been well-known story that Major declared ‘classless society’ and ‘a nation ease with itself’ as his political goal when he became Prime Minister. As discussed in former section, this was one of main reason he was considered that he would have a distance from politics of Thatcher. Indeed, the meanings of these words are not different from freedom or opportunity in his speeches. ‘Classless society’ and ‘a nation ease with itself’ for him had been nothing more than another rhetorical way to say ‘freedom’ like opportunity:

… a classless society: not in the grey sense of drab uniformity - but in the sense that we remove the artificial barriers to choice and achievement (Major, 1990).

I spoke of a classless society. … I don’t mean a society in which everyone is the same, or thinks the same, or earns the same. But a tapestry of talents in which everyone from child to adult respects achievement; where every promotion, every certificate is respected, and each person’s contribution is valued (Major, 1991c).

I had no doubt the first of these was to create a nation at ease with itself. … We live at ease with others when each of us has the same choices. The same opportunities. Peace of mind. Simple human dignity. We're all entitled to that (Major, 1992a).

Political philosophy

New Right

There had been few disagreement with the argument that New Right thinking constitutes a basement of Thatcherism (Evans & Taylor, 1996; Kavanagh, 1990, , 1997; Wilson, 1992). As New Right is often used as a term interchangeable with Thatcherism (Kavanagh, 1997), this thinking, as a ideology itself covers the whole ideological factors including interpretation of contemporary society, role of government, and economic strategy in the criteria using in this study for the analysis. Yet the discussion of New Right just focuses on philosophical aspect in this section because other factors are addressed in other criteria such as ‘challenges to contemporary society’, ‘major actors’ and ‘major strategy’.

The root of Thatcher’s New Right philosophy is known to be Friedrich von Hayek, the most significant thinker of the New Right (Wilson, 1992). He idealises free market society in which all actions and choices decided by free individuals under stable and strict rules (Gamble, 1983). In his view, more government intervention and monopoly disadvantage not only national economy but also all people’s prosperity by diminishing market principle (Wilson, 1992). This perspective is well reflected in Thatcher’s and Major’s view on state intervention confined in former section. Their beliefs in market superiority are dominant in speeches of Thatcher and Major. Market system had been described to let people choose freely what is better for them and encourage competition that make entrepreneur innovate to provide better product with lower price so, at the end, benefit all customer not only the rich but also all ordinary people:

The capitalist engine is first and last an engine of mass production, which unavoidably means also production for the masses. It is the cheap cloth, the cheap fabric, boots motor cars and so on that are the typical achievements of capitalist production and not as a rule improvements that would mean much to the rich man. In brief, the material superiority of the free society gives its main benefits to the very people the Socialists claim to cherish (Thatcher, 1977a).

People must be free to choose what they consume, in goods and services. When they choose through the market, their choice is sovereign. They alone exercise their responsibility as consumers and producers. To the extent that the fruits of their efforts are taken away by the state, or other coercive bodies, they not only have responsibility taken away from them, but the ability to make their wishes felt (Thatcher, 1977d).

We believe in encouraging competition, free enterprise, and profits in-firms large and small (Thatcher, 1978a).

In industry just as in capital markets there is "One World". Moved by the invisible hand of competitive advantage, business enterprises now pay scant regard to national boundaries in their pursuit of efficient production. … Freer trade has meant lower prices, more competition and faster growth. And every consumer has benefited (Thatcher, 1981b).

Mr. President time and again history beats out the same message. Competition is better for the consumer than State control (Thatcher, 1982b).

… I believed passionately that if the British character was allowed more free play it had marvellous characteristics which had served this nation very well in the past and would do so in the future (Thatcher, 1988b).

… the fourth essential, Mr Chairman, is an economy based on market principles and a right to private property. Wealth is not created by regulation and instruction, but by ordinary enterprising people (Thatcher, 1990c).

… we believe in free markets, we believe in private ownership. … And because we've believed in it, millions of families up and down the land now have savings of their own (Major, 1994b).

Belief of Thatcher and Major in superiority of free market was found to base on their understanding of human nature. In New Right philosophy, individuals are assumed to be always maximiser of their own self-interest by their own rational choice (Wilson, 1992). Free market is superior for New Right thinkers because it is a system in which optimal compromise is always made between free individuals who can choose what the best is for them under rational thinking. Furthermore free market was believed to work always better in philosophy of Thatcher and Major because it bases on human nature that people want to choose what is for them independently, then they could be encouraged to do the best to earn and own more for them:

… what you find is, that people want to spend their own money to buy what they want when they want it (Thatcher, 1975a).

It was incentive-positive, vital, driving, individual incentive. The incentive that was once the dynamo of this country but which today our youth are denied. … We Conservatives have to recreate the conditions cited by that wise French philosopher de Tocqueville-conditions which ‘give men the courage to seek prosperity, the freedom to follow it up, the sense and habits to find it, and the assurance of reaping the benefits’ (Thatcher, 1976b).

The strength of our policies is that they are founded on the best instincts of our people-an instinct for ownership, for thrift, for honest work and fair rewards (Thatcher, 1986a).

The desire to do better for one's family is one of the strongest and best motives in human nature (Thatcher, 1987c).

Because we give people the chance to better themselves, they accuse us of encouraging selfishness and greed.[fo 4] What nonsense. Does someone's natural desire to do well for himself, to build a better life for his family and provide opportunities for his children, does all this make him a materialist? Of course it doesn't. It makes him a decent human being, committed to his family and his community (clapping), and prepared to take responsibility on his own shoulders. The truth is that what we are actually encouraging is the best in human nature (Thatcher, 1988c).

Not challenging the basic instincts of the individual - we will always go with the grain of human ambition. But answering better the aspirations of individuals. Opening up new doors and wider avenues so that their instincts and ambitions can be realised (Major, 1992c).

Put children together and what do you see. They run. They jump. They fight. They compete. It is their natural instinct (Major, 1994a).

Government is also considered as a self-interest maximiser for New Right thinkers by the influence of Virginia school of public choice theory (Kavanagh, 1990; Wilson, 1992). This is a fundamental problem of governments for them because governments produce expensive policies without limits not at expense of their own but at expense of others – widespread taxpayers (Kavanagh, 1990; Marquand, 1988; Wilson, 1992). So governments spends more money to be bought by more consumers’ vote in next election under mass democracy, which is, therefore, inherently inflationary. Moreover because governments itself is self-interest maximiser like any other individuals, governments always try to expend themselves but not by their own money but by taxpayers money.

However, this approach was not found in speeches of Thatcher and Major. Even though they fully accepted inefficiency and disadvantage of state intervention but their condemnation on government had not gone further than that. It is probably because they were the ones who ran governments – but who tried to reduce government’s spending - and they did not deny basic role of government providing Health and Education service as well as basic social security for the worse-off which was found in the analysis in major actor section.

Individualism

Individualism was appeared as another basic philosophy of Thatcher and Major in their speeches and it is also on the context of New Right philosophy. It is against collectivism which roots in mutual responsibility for substantial parts of life in society (Wilding, 1992). They denied collectivism and clearly stated that individual or family was the central unit of society bearing ultimate responsibility for own life (Pascall, 1997) rather than community. Minogue (1988) argues they offered psychological liberation from collective guilt to the affluent middle class in British society at that time. They explained community also benefited by achievement of individuals not by collective activity:

Now, it's not that our people are suddenly reverting to the ideals of laissez-faire. Nor are they rejecting the social advances of recent decades. It's rather that they are reviving a constructive interest in the noble ideals of personal responsibility, because in some respects the concepts of social responsibility have turned sour in practice (Thatcher, 1975a).

Some Socialists seem to believe that people should be numbers in a State computer. We believe they should be individuals. … We believe that everyone has the right to be unequal but to us every human being is equally important. … The spirit of envy can destroy. It can never build. Everyone must be allowed to develop the abilities he knows he has within him, and she knows she has within her, in the way they choose (Thatcher, 1975b).

The economic results are better because the moral philosophy is superior. It is superior because it starts with the individual, with his uniqueness, his responsibility, and his capacity to choose. … In our philosophy the purpose of the life of the individual is not to be the servant of the State and its objectives, but to make the best of his talents and qualities (Thatcher, 1977a).

… it sees concern for self and responsibility for self as something to be expected, and asks only that this be extended to others. This embodies the great truth that self-regard is the root of regard for one's fellows. The child learns to understand others through its own feelings. At first its immediate family, in course of time the circle grows. … If we had no desire for these things, would we be likely to understand and further others' desire for them? (Thatcher, 1977d)

But as Conservatives we believe that recovery can only come through the work of individuals. We mustn't forever take refuge behind collective decisions. Each of us must assume our own responsibilities (Thatcher, 1979a).

… a great nation is the voluntary creation of its people-a people composed of men and women whose pride in themselves is founded on the knowledge of what they can give to a community of which they in turn can be proud (Thatcher, 1980b).

For freedom belongs, not to a collective, not to this on that class, but to individuals, each and every one (Thatcher, 1985).

I wish to goodness more people would in fact take responsibility for looking after their own families instead of expecting others to look after them. It is not selfish. It is not selfish to have an ambition, to want to do more for your own family so that they have a better way of life than you had. It is not selfish to want to have enough over to help your own parents. It is not selfish to wish to benefit from your own efforts so that you may then have money over to give to causes which you choose or to choose a lifestyle and a way of life which you wish to choose (Thatcher, 1988b).

Personal effort doesn't undermine the community; it enhances the community. When individual talents are held back, the community is held back too. Encourage the individual and the community benefits. A parent's success is shared by his family, a pupil's by his school, a soldier's by his regiment. A man may climb Everest for himself, but at the summit he plants his country's flag (Thatcher, 1988c).

… what are the fundamental tenets of true democracy? For me they are these: -first, a sense of personal responsibility. People need to realise that they are not just pawns on a chessboard, to be moved around at the whim of politicians. They can influence their destiny by their own efforts (Thatcher, 1990c).

For I believe - strongly - that you, and not the Government, should be in charge of your life (Conservative Party, 1992).

The instinct for independence is a basic human instinct (Major, 1992c).

Without choice there is no freedom. Without choice there is no achievement. It's a basic fact of human nature. When people choose, they become committed (Major, 1993a).

Nationalism

Nationalism or patriotism is generally regarded as a one of the element consisting Thatcherism (Kavanagh, 1997; Marquand, 1988; Wilson, 1992). In particular, through the Falkland war, Thatcher could gain dominant political status in Conservative party as well as national popularity by nationalist appeal (Charmley, 1996). Also it is true that patriotic comments were often found in her initial speeches. She emphasised greatness of Britain (Thatcher, 1975b, , 1976a) and past glories of British empire and English literatures (Thatcher, 1978b). Even she declared that the Conservative Party ‘above all, a patriotic party, a national party’ (Thatcher, 1976b) then this peaked after the Falkland war (Thatcher, 1982c).

However, as Lynch (1999) points out, nationalism in Thatcher’s politics was instinctive and short-term expression for populist appeal rather than coherent philosophy of her ideology. Even though she used patriotic language initially, it was not leaded to consistent national strategy in her political ideology. Indeed, her nationalist remark in her speeches had mostly disappeared since her second term and there was no such a strong nationalist comment in Major’s speeches.

Back to basics

In his 1993 Party conference speech in 1993, Major raise new theme to define his conservatism, ‘Back to Basics’ (Major, 1993a). His original intention of it is known to reunited his party and present unifying ground for the Government’s legislative programme such as in education and criminal justice (Gilmour & Garnett, 1997). In this theme, he claimed that there had been moral decay in fast changing society and we should back to traditional moral values. However, this claims seemed to be too out-of-date idea as it appeared to idealise conventional social order in the past against changes in modern society, for example, traditional family model (Evans & Taylor, 1996). Moreover, it was not good time for the Conservative Party to raise moral issue as Lord Justice Scott’s inquiry into the sale of arms to Iraq was being carried out and the MP Stephen Milligan was found dead in women’s stockings in following month (Gilmour & Garnett, 1997). So this moral theme was presented in his speeches just several occasions by 1994, for example, in Major (1994a), then disappeared afterward.

Major strategy

Rolling back state and trade union

When their interpretation of economic difficulties mainly occurred by too dominant state and trade union power in economics is considered, cutting the powers and influences would be obvious solution for Thatcher and Major for the recovery. Their strategy had, in particular, focused on so called ‘rolling back state’. This had appeared to be conduced in three ways: curbing public spending, privatisation, and cutting tax. Reducing public spending was represented as an urgent task firstly to control inflation by stop spending more than earned through borrowing. Also it had been described to be the way along with deregulation to allow private business sector more freedom and opportunity to prosper:

We can't go on like this. We are paying ourselves more than the value of what we produce. We are spending more than we earn. The gap has to be bridged. … The only way to safety is to stop borrowing and stop borrowing soon; … it can concentrate all its economies on the Government's own spending … the only common-sense answer is to reduce government spending (Thatcher, 1976b).

So if you ask whether the next Conservative Government will cut controls and regulations and keep interference in people's lives to a minimum, my answer is "Yes, that is exactly what we shall do (Thatcher, 1977c).

… inflation is a major problem which cannot be cured without curbing public spending (Thatcher, 1979a).

We can, however, make it easier for industry to adjust. First, we must control public sector borrowing, so that interest rates can fall. … Second, the relentless growth of the public sector has put a crushing burden on the private wealth-creating sector (Thatcher, 1980a).

Countries which have overspent and overborrowed must reduce their spending and reduce their borrowing (Thatcher, 1982a).

Prosperity will not come by inventing more and more lavish public expenditure programmes. You do not grow richer by ordering another cheque-book from the Bank. No nation ever grew more prosperous by taxing its citizens beyond their capacity to pay (Thatcher, 1983b).

Yet when I looked around the Cabinet table last Thursday, as we brought to a conclusion the annual spending round, what I saw was a group of Ministers, regarding themselves not only as heads of spending Departments, but as members of a Cabinet united behind a single strategy-a strategy of keeping public expenditure under control, so that (as befits a free society) people may keep more of their own money to spend or save as they choose, a very worthy and laudable aim (Thatcher, 1984a).

How have we been able to do this without running into the financial crises which Labour's spending policies invariably set off? First, we have been prudent with the nation's money. We have slashed public borrowing and sought savings in government expenditure wherever they could sensibly be found. Second, we are engaged in steadily reducing the share of the nation's income taken by the State (Conservative Party, 1987).

You know, deregulation isn't just about making life better for business. It's about making life better for everybody (Major, 1992b).

We try to remove government from the everyday lives of people. We believe that every family should be entitled to enrich their own private corner of life, and then pass it on to their children without over-mighty taxation (Major, 1994b).

Privatisation had been another major strategy to roll back state. It had been not only demonstrated as a way not only to make the former national industries more efficient but also give private entrepreneurs more freedom to prosper. It had been also combined with another major strategy of diffusing ownership by providing opportunity for workers to own shares of the companies for popular capitalism or capital-owing democracy. Furthermore marketisation of public sector had appeared as a part of privatisation to make existing national industries and public services more efficient and responsible to their customer (citizen) by putting them into competition:

Some of our economic problems now stem from nationalisation. … The State's concern in economic affairs must be primarily to service the nation. Its task should be to ensure that as few obstacles as possible are placed in the way of our own pursuit of enterprise, not to try and organise how we should do that (Thatcher, 1978b).

More nationalisation would further impoverish us and further undermine our freedom (Conservative Party, 1979).

You have said it all week. Private business is still being held to ransom by the giant monopolist nationalised industries. … The fact is that only when we introduce the spur of competition in the State owned industries do they begin to respond to the needs of the customer (Thatcher, 1981a).

Three and a half years ago defenders of the status quo tried to brand denationalisation as irrelevant. Now the critics are finding it harder to ignore the evidence of their own eyes. They cannot help seeing the new, long-distance coaches speeding down the motor-ways, at very much lower fares (Thatcher, 1982b).

… few people can now believe that state ownership means better service to the customer. The old illusions have melted away. … A company which has to satisfy its customers and compete to survive is more likely to be efficient, alert to innovation, and genuinely accountable to the public (Conservative Party, 1983).

They work hard and conscientiously in the true spirit of service and I pay special tribute to the splendid efforts of Conservative councils up and down the country in getting better value for money through greater efficiency and putting out work to competitive tender. This is privatization at the local level and we need more of it (Thatcher, 1984b).

We believe also that it should be as common for people to own shares as it is for them to own houses or cars. The privatisation of British Telecom and many other firms extended share-ownership to hundreds of thousands who had never owned shares before. And there will be further measures to come (Thatcher, 1985).

… what's more, millions have already become shareholders. And soon there will be opportunities for millions more, in British Gas, British Airways, British Airports and Rolls-Royce (Thatcher, 1986b).

Over a third of the companies and industries which used to be owned by the State have been returned to free enterprise. Productivity and profitability have soared in the newly privatised companies. … It is no mystery why privatisation has succeeded. The overwhelming majority of employees have become shareholders in the newly privatised companies. They want their companies to succeed. … We will continue the successful programme of privatisation (Conservative Party, 1987).

Since we took office we have handed eighteen State Enterprises back to the British people-eighteen so far, more to come. We have encouraged ownership at home and ownership at work (Thatcher, 1988c).

We have returned to private enterprise two-thirds of the companies once owned by the state: 46 businesses employing about 900,000 people. … But much greater economic efficiency is not the only gain. Employees have been able to take a direct stake in the newly privatised companies. … We will continue our privatisation programme. … We will bring private sector enterprise into the public services by encouraging contracting out and competitive tendering throughout government. … We will maintain our programme of compulsory competitive tendering of local authority services (Conservative Party, 1992).

Over the years we’ve reined back the size of the state. Steel coal, gas, electricity, water, airways - all once leeched on the state for subsidy. Now they’re in the private sector, yielding taxes for schools, hospitals, police. It’s a remarkable record - a smaller state, lower income tax and better services (Major, 1997).

Tax had been seen for Thatcher and Major basically as a burden on success of individuals and businesses. This was the reason why cutting tax had been described as one of the major actions of rolling back state in order to encourage reward to hard work, people’s independence, and prosperous economy:

We must break out of restraint if we are to have a prosperous and successful future. … We shall do it by following the example of other Conservative governments and cutting taxes as soon as we can (Thatcher, 1976b).

We shall cut income tax at all levels to reward hard work, responsibility and success; tackle the poverty trap; encourage saving and the wider ownership of property; simplify taxes - like VAT; and reduce tax bureaucracy (Conservative Party, 1979).

We've reduced the crushing burden of taxes on business (Thatcher, 1983a).

Lower taxation coupled with lower inflation makes everyone better off. It encourages people to work harder, to be inventive and to take risks. It promotes a climate of enterprise and initiative. … There is a strong moral case for reducing taxation. High taxes deprive people of their independence and make their choices for them. The desire to do better for one's family is one of the strongest motives in human nature (Conservative Party, 1987).

… the top rate of tax … is now lower than it was then because we believe that when tax rates are at sensible levels, people have the incentive to work harder and to earn more, hence a strong economy, a buoyant level of tax revenue and a budget surplus. So as a result, we are now steadily repaying the national debt (Thatcher, 1988a).

Our Party has always kept personal tax rates down. And in the next Parliament we will go on doing so. Lower taxes don’t just mean richer people. They mean a richer life. A life with wider horizons, in which people can develop their interests. … lower taxes give people more powerful choices, too. The chance to save for the long-term, to invest in the future. Building up a pension. Starting a business. Giving their children a good start in life - and passing on to them the fruits of a lifetime’s work (Major, 1991c).

An enterprise economy rewards the industrious and thrifty We believe that government should not gobble up all the proceeds of growth, and that those who create prosperity should enjoy it, through lower taxes and more opportunity to build up personal wealth (Major, 1992b).

My aim is to make the state smaller, but better. That’s why our target is a 20 pence basic rate of tax - and for state spending to fall below 40 per cent of the nation’s wealth (Major, 1997).

Control of trade union power was also important for Thatcher and Major to address influence of radical activist and militants, and minimise disruption in businesses by strikes by them. Thatcher claimed a range of legislations for it such as abolition of close shop, restriction of picketing and introduction of secret ballot (Thatcher, 1979a, , 1980b). Major also insisted that series of reform of trade union including written authorisation for union membership, postal pre-strike ballot, independent scrutiny on it, seven days’ of notice of strike, and right to restrain the disruption of public services by illegal industrial action (Conservative Party, 1992).

Monetarism

Apart from rolling back state, the chief government strategy for economic prosperity is to make firm ground for market to work batter by maintaining stability and controlling money supply which are central policy of monetarism (Gamble, 1983). These monetarist policies such as defeating inflation and keeping sound money had appeared as a top priority as well as foundational condition for economic recovery and development in Thatcher’s and Major’s speeches:

SOUND MONEY and a fair balance between the rights and obligations of unions, management and the community in which they work are essential to economic recovery (Conservative Party, 1979).

So we shall not compromise our responsibility to provide a secure financial framework in which the free economy can flourish (Thatcher, 1982a).

We had to start by restoring honest money. Without that, nothing we tried to do could possibly succeed (Thatcher, 1983a).

Among other things, we agreed that lower interest rates are essential to sustain the recovery. As we have seen in the past week here in Britain, firm control of money can bring the rates down (Thatcher, 1984a).

Our success in the battle against inflation has been the key to Britain's economic revival. It required firm control of public expenditure, a substantial reduction in government borrowing, curbing the growth of money in circulation, maintaining financial discipline, stimulating competition and moderating trade union power (Conservative Party, 1987).

… it is time for all countries to go back to fundamentals. … The first fundamental, sound money and low inflation. … Second, prudent finance and living within your means, maxims easy to state but which require perseverance to apply (Thatcher, 1987a).

Buoyant investment has been a very good thing but too much consumption has been financed by too much borrowing so we have taken action to make sure that inflation is kept firmly in check because the defeat of inflation remains our top priority (Thatcher, 1988a).

The defeat of inflation has to be the overriding priority (Thatcher, 1989a).

First and foremost, I loathe inflation. To me inflation is not an abstract concept. It means the destruction of competitiveness for industry and commerce (Major, 1990).

A Government that secures two things: low inflation - and the right climate for business to succeed (Major, 1992b).

... success has another vital ingredient: getting public finances back under control (Major, 1993a).

We will keep inflation firmly under control (Major, 1996a).

As endeavour of government to keep full employment is understood to be doomed to failure under monetarism (Gamble, 1983), Thatcher and Major also made it clear that unemployment could be only solved by economic recovery through government financial policy to create a sound ground for it rather than direct state intervention:

We need to concentrate more on the creation of conditions in which new, more modern, more secure, better paid jobs come into existence (Conservative Party, 1979).

we are fighting unemployment by fighting inflation (Thatcher, 1981a).

The truth is that unemployment, in Britain as in other countries, can be checked and then reduced only by steadily and patiently rebuilding the economy so that it produces the goods and services which people want to buy, at prices they can afford (Conservative Party, 1983).

We all of us agreed that if we are to tackle unemployment, we have to persist with the battle against inflation (Thatcher, 1985).

Unemployment is a bitter experience. So I don't want a temporary cure. I want a lasting recovery. I want to come out of this recession safe from the threat of its repetition. That's why we're looking for long-term solutions (Major, 1992b).

The first was to get inflation down and keep it down. That's the only way to bring down unemployment and create jobs (Major, 1993a).

Jobs. We will continue to help businesses create more jobs, particularly for the young (Major, 1996a).

Diffusion of ownership

Along with rolling back state, as monetarist policies were core strategy what government can do economic prosperity, diffusion of ownership was central policy for Thatcher and Major Governments to make this prosperity reach to the people. In other words, people could enjoy national prosperity by owning home, shares, and savings. Moreover the ownership had been the way in their ideology to make people free by financial independence. People could help themselves by ownership without government intervention. On the other hand, it means people have to bear their own responsibility for what happened to them and their family by ownership. It reflects individualism in Conservative ideology. Briefly, diffusion of ownership is the ideology of Thatcher and Major Governments is equivalent with distribution means in those of the left. Encouragement of home ownership by selling council houses appeared to be the first step for the diffusion and it had extended to ownership of shares, savings and pensions by a range of measures such as privatisation and lowering taxes:

We would like to see the workers who help create the profits sharing them. … Under a Conservative Government we hope that more of them will own a stake in industry and that more of them will own their own homes (Thatcher, 1977c).

To most people ownership means first and foremost a home of their own (Conservative Party, 1979).

It was Anthony Eden who chose for us the goal of "a property-owning democracy". But for all the time that I have been in public affairs that has been beyond the reach of so many, who were denied the right to the most basic ownership of all-the homes in which they live (Thatcher, 1980b).

Yet the family is the basic unit of our society and it is in the family that the next generation is nurtured. Our concern is to create a property owning democracy and it is therefore a very human concern. It is a natural desire of Conservatives that every family should have a stake in society and that the privilege of a family home should not be restricted to the few (Thatcher, 1981a).

Wherever we can we shall extend the opportunity for personal ownership and the self-respect that goes with it (Thatcher, 1982b).

We have given every council and New Town tenant the legal right to buy his or her own home. Many Housing Association tenants have been granted the same right, too. This is the biggest single step towards a home-owning democracy ever taken. It is also the largest transfer of property from the State to the individual (Conservative Party, 1983).

When you have something of your own, you take care of it-you do it yourself in the garden or in the house. As a property owner you respect the rights of others, and the rule of law which upholds them. As a property owner you understand your own responsibility (Thatcher, 1985).

Private ownership-of companies, of homes, of property of every kind-goes far deeper than mere efficiency. All of us in politics have dreams. It is part of mine to give power and responsibility back to people, to restore to individuals and families the sense and feeling of independence (Thatcher, 1986a).

what this Conservative Government has done is to make it easier for people to acquire independence for themselves: by introducing the right to buy council houses; by returning nationalised industries to the people in ways that encourage the widest possible spread of ownership; by making it easier to buy shares in British industry through employee share schemes and Personal Equity Plans (Conservative Party, 1987).

We can only build a responsible, independent community with responsible, independent people. That's why Conservative policies have given more and more of them the chance to buy their own homes, to build up capital, to acquire shares in their companies (Thatcher, 1988c).

In the 1980s we began a great revolution. Our aim was a life enriched by ownership, in which homes, shares and pensions were not something for others, but something for everyone. … But this revolution is still not complete. In the 1990s we must carry it further. We must extend savings and ownership in every form. … The pioneers of the property-owning democracy are the parents of the capital-owning democracy to come (Major, 1991c).

Alongside choice there is a second great foundation to the Tory approach - ownership. And with it goes wealth creation, which is the only way to provide for those who need help (Major, 1992a).

We have cut direct tax, given more and more people the opportunity to save, to own shares, own pensions, own homes. More than ever before, we have given families more independence and more freedom to choose (Major, 1996b).

I want to see everyone have these opportunities. To see the have-nots become the haves. That’s why we started the sale of council houses. Why we’ve sold shares and spread savings. And it’s why we’re going to provide secure pensions for everyone (Major, 1997).

Law and order

As sound money was essential condition for economic prosperity, law and order were foundation for people’s freedom for Thatcher and Major. They told there was no freedom in lawless anarchy. Rule of law provided standard ordinary people could follow in safety and order established stable ground for people to enjoy their freedom in their ideology. Even, sometimes a little freedom could be suspended for protection of the whole freedom under law and order:

The third thing I believed in passionately was the human being's fundamental right to liberty, and that liberty would only work under a rule of law because it is the order of the law which enables freedom to work (Thatcher, 1977a).

… freedom we must have if this nation is to prosper, but freedom to make economic progress isn't absolutely everything. There must be freedom under a rule of law as well (Thatcher, 1979b).

People yearn to be able to rely on some generally accepted standards. Without them you have not got a society at all, you have purposeless anarchy (Thatcher, 1980b).

We are all in it together, because a breakdown of law and order strikes at everyone. No one is exempt when the terrorists and the bully boys take over. We look to the police and to the courts to protect the freedom of ordinary people, because without order none of us can go about our daily business in safety (Thatcher, 1981a).

The rule of law matters deeply to every one of us. Any concession to the thief, the thug or the terrorist undermines that principle which is the foundation of all our liberties (Conservative Party, 1983).

If the police and courts are lacking in the powers necessary to keep order in a free society and necessary to protect the weak against the strong, then we shall introduce measures which give them what they need. For our purpose is to support and strenuously to defend the institutions which are the foundations of a free society (Thatcher, 1984a).

For without the rule of law, there can be no liberty (Thatcher, 1986b).

We do sometimes have to sacrifice a little of the freedom we cherish in order to defend ourselves from those whose aim is to destroy that freedom altogether and that is a decision which we should not afraid to take, because in the battle against terrorism we shall never give in. The only victory will be our victory-the victory of democracy and a free society (Thatcher, 1988a)!

The Conservative Party has always stood for the protection of the citizen and the defence of the rule of law (Conservative Party, 1992).

Public service reform and Citizen’s Charter

As long as they conceded basic role of government in public service including social security, health, and education, there had been on other option for Thatcher and Major but making public service efficient by adopting market principle such as competition and choice under their belief in superiority of free-market. It was Thatcher who started to claim more competition and choice in education (Conservative Party, 1983; Thatcher, 1982b, , 1987c) and at the end of her premiership this extended to the whole public services including health and housing (Thatcher, 1989b, , 1990b). This claim was continued to the Major Government (Major, 1990).

Citizen’s Charter is on the line of this development. Citizen’s Charter had been framework to import private sector management practice to improve performance of public service by performance measurement, central inspection, competition, consumer’s choice and more information about standard (Conservative Party, 1992; Major, 1991b, , 1991c, , 1992a, , 1992c, , 1993a, , 1994a). This programme had been extended alongside competitive tendering and contracting-out of public services (Major, 1992c).

Major actors

Role of government

Even though state intervention was indicated one of the reasons of economic difficulties and ‘rolling back state’ was one of the major strategies in the ideology of Thatcher and Major, it is far from withdrawal or denial of the role of government. It was redirection of state role from positive and active role such as economic planning and state control over industries to negative and protective role such as safeguarding citizen, maintaining firm ground for economy, and protecting the most vulnerable groups. These roles are clearly stated speech of Thatcher and Major’s foreword of the Party Manifesto:

The State has, it seems to me, three main roles: first, to defend the population against its enemies within and without and to act as the force behind the law: In this, the State should have a monopoly of power, second, its function in social services, where it can play a big part but should not have a monopoly, and third, its role in the economy, where not only should the State refrain from a monopoly but its every activity should be scrutinised to be sure that it cannot be carried out more effectively by private enterprise (Thatcher, 1978b).

I believe in a responsible society Government's duties are clear: to protect Britain in a dangerous world; to look after those who cannot look after themselves; to protect law-abiding people from crime and disorder; and to protect the value of our currency - without which all spending pledges are worthless and all savings at risk (Conservative Party, 1992).

The foremost duty of government appeared to be protection of their citizen. It included providing equitable and enforceable system of law (Conservative Party, 1987, , 1992; Thatcher, 1975b, , 1978b, , 1982b, , 1983b) as well as firm defence against external threat (Conservative Party, 1992; Thatcher, 1976b, , 1978b, , 1982b) to secure citizens daily life and free economic activity. As discussed in former section, no freedom and prosperity were thought to be guaranteed without security in Thatcher’s and Major’s thinking.

The second role of government had been illustrated as an organiser of fair and stable playground for economic player. Also government was referee on the ground in the explanation of Thatcher and Major so the referee never to be player for them because this ruined the game itself as shown in their interpretation of contemporary society. Role of referee in economics demonstrated to be much wider than monetarist policy discussed former section. It appeared to include deregulating unnecessary restrictions, fair and clear taxation system, lower tax, lowing barriers for small business and self-employed, cutting red tape, and protecting interest of pioneers and unfortunate failures:

The third role of the State is its involvement in the economy. … Its task should be to ensure that as few obstacles as possible are placed in the way of our own pursuit of enterprise, not to try and organise how we should do that. Thus the State should be concerned with such matters as the enforcement of private contracts, the encouragement of competitive markets, the guarantee of fair trading, maintenance of incentives regulation of health and safety standards. (Thatcher, 1978b).

The proper role of government is to set free the natural energy of the people, and that means real rewards for effort and skill. It means restoring a wide degree of freedom to the forces that make up human society (Thatcher, 1979a).

… we in Government cannot ensure that the pre-eminence of London will continue. That's up to you. But what we can do is to make certain that you are not constrained by needless regulation (Thatcher, 1981b).

It is Government's duty to provide: … -a fair and clear system of taxation so that the producer is not harried by arbitrary and incomprehensible tax demands. -and a stable and honest currency and banking system so that the saver knows his money is secure. … The task of Government is to provide the right framework in which industry and commerce can operate. Then and only then will enterprise be able to flourish (Thatcher, 1982a).

This Conservative Government has been both giving those incentives and clearing away the obstacles to expansion: the high rates of tax on individuals and businesses; the difficulties facing the small firm trying to grow, and the self-employed man trying to set up on his own; the blockages in the planning system; the bottlenecks on our roads; the restrictions on our farmers and fishermen; and the resistance to new ideas and technologies (Conservative Party, 1983).

The Conservative Government has created a framework in which once again enterprise can flourish - by cutting red tape, by denationalising state-owned companies, by removing unnecessary restrictions, by abolishing exchange control, by enabling the City of London to become the foremost financial centre in the world, by keeping down prices through extending competition, and by ensuring access to open trade so that British exporters and consumers can both benefit (Conservative Party, 1987).

For us each person counts. We never forget those with their foot on the first rung of the ladder of opportunity. Or those who have been knocked off it by misfortune. The Government I lead will always protect their interests (Major, 1992b).

It’s asking us, as the Government to play our part in creating the right economic environment for industry to let loose its own energies and compete on a level basis with the rest of the world (Major, 1993b).

Finally, protection for vulnerable people such as the disable, unemployed and elderly conceded as a one of the government duty for Thatcher and Major. However, it was restricted to the most vulnerable people who were least able to help themselves in their language. Also it was believed that provision should not be state monopoly but mixed economy with more involvement of voluntary and private providers and appropriate role of government was an enabler and facilitator rather than provider not only for service provision but also for service users to regain their independence:

The second role of the State is in respect of the social services. Whether it be in cash benefits, health, or education, the State should not be the only agency concerned. Voluntary organisations, private pension and insurance funds, personal health provision, and above all family and friends, will always have a vital part to play (Thatcher, 1978b).

… we must protect the most vulnerable from the extremes of the international climate (Thatcher, 1981b).

Conservatives believe equally strongly in the duty of Government to help those who are least able to help themselves (Conservative Party, 1983).

For an increasing number of public services the State should be an enabler and facilitator (Major, 1992c).

… governments can help those who have been out of work for sometime to regain the confidence and work experience they need (Major, 1995).

I believe it is time for the third great move forward in public welfare. To bolster social security with personal and family security. To build alongside State provision growing private wealth. To replace the insecurity of dependence for many with the security of independence for all (Major, 1997).

Business sector

It was evidently stated in speeches of Thatcher and Major and Manifesto under their leadership that it was not government but private sector that created more jobs, make economy prosper, and increased wealth of nation. Entrepreneurs were understood that they would do their job at their best for their own interest under free-market mechanism if the government let them did:

Private enterprise is by far the best method of harnessing the energy and ambition of the individual to increasing the wealth of the nation, for pioneering new products and technologies, for holding down prices through the mechanism of competition, and for widening the range and choice of goods and services and jobs (Thatcher, 1975a).

Countries that are more successful than we are owe their economic achievements above all to free enterprise. And the benefits are not confined to a few of their citizens. They are spread among the many (Thatcher, 1977c).

Material progress depends on the genius, flair and application of our people in industry, trade and commerce. How products are designed and how their production is organised is a matter for management (Thatcher, 1982a).

Government has no business running business. So it's up to you the professionals to perform, to keep the wheels humming, and to provide the vigour and the enterprise (Thatcher, 1986a).

… it is our passionate belief that free enterprise and competition are the engines of prosperity and the guardians of liberty (Thatcher, 1987b).

In the 1990s, the Government's task will be to provide an economic environment which encourages enterprise - the mainspring of prosperity (Conservative Party, 1992).

People accuse us - accuse us - people accuse us of being the business party. Well, you bet we are. We’re for small business and we’re for large business. We’re for more business, not less business. When business booms, Britain booms, so we’re for private enterprise and we’re proud of it (Major, 1993b).

We know jobs for the future are created by enterprise, not government (Major, 1995).

Citizenship

It would not be inappropriate to say that there was no such a thing as citizenship in the ideology of Thatcher and Major Government. At least there was no collective concept of citizenship. Under their individualism, concept of citizenship basing on collective responsibility and social obligation had been privatised (New Statesman, 1988). Citizenship right was replaced with right to buy as a consumer in free-market (Wilding, 1992) through diffusion of ownership in strategy and social obligation was took over to voluntary generosity beyond conventional ‘bureaucratic definition of citizenship’ (Hurd, 1988, p. 14). In this privatised concept of citizenship, responsibilities fell into individuals or their family rather than society or community:

In turn the material success of the free society enables people to show a degree of generosity to the less fortunate-unmatched in any other society (Thatcher, 1977a).

In the community, we must do more to help people to help themselves, and families to look after their own. We must also encourage the voluntary movement and self-help groups working in partnership with the statutory services (Conservative Party, 1979).

The well-being of our people is about far more than the welfare state. It is about self reliance, family help, voluntary help as well as State provision. In a society which is truly healthy responsibility is shared and help is mutual. Wherever we can we shall extend the opportunity for personal ownership and the self-respect that goes with it (Thatcher, 1982b).

Freedom and responsibility go together. The Conservative Party believes in encouraging people to take responsibility for their own decisions. We shall continue to return more choice to individuals and their families (Conservative Party, 1983).

For I believe - strongly - that you, and not the Government, should be in charge of your life. That's what Conservatism stands for (Conservative Party, 1992).

Discussion

Three questions raised from the initial literature review in the Chapter should be firstly addressed before further discussion. They were about consistency and rationality of Thatcherite ideology, and continuity of ideology in Major government from Thatcherism. Firstly, the analysis shows the great level of consistency of Thatcherism. From interpretation of contemporary society to political objectives through major strategies, her presentations in her speeches and manifestos under her leadership are seen with a range of constant factors in each criterion over more than a decade.

The analysis also shows the great level of coherence in ideology of Thatcher. Contradiction of economic liberalism and authoritarianism were initially indicated. Yet while economic freedom had been evidently demonstrated as a part of ideological goal and strategy, at least in the ideological dimension, authoritarian argument such as centralisation of power had not been significant. Law and order, the most authoritarian factor in the ideology, is represented as a one of strategies to guarantee freedom in society and economy through secured environment. Paradox between nationalist language and ‘rolling back state’ was also indicated but, as initial nationalist utterance of Thatcher is revealed as a temporal rhetorical remarks rather than substantial factors in the ideology. So the claim of the paradox in the Thatcherite ideology is dismissed.

The continuity between ideologies of Thatcher and Major is found far more dominant than difference. They share all of factors in every criterion with few differences. Citizen’s Charter could be only distinguishing point in the ideology of Major government from Thatcher’s but it could not be unique feature of Major’s because the core idea of the Charter which is the adaptation of market system into public sector to improve its efficiency is already seen in Thatcher’s. So the whole structure of ideology of Thatcher and Major government could be visualised as Figure 1.

Being compared to ideology of Labour, one of the dual objectives in Conservative ideology is replaced from social equality to freedom while prosperity is left as it is. Furthermore the roles for each objective are clearly divided between government and business sector. State has no direct role for prosperity while it takes central duty to extend and secure freedom of citizen and business sector through lower tax and rule of law in the ideology. Achieving prosperity is role of business sector by economic activity and citizen by ownership. However, these two roles link each other through interrelationship between dual objectives. Freedom is a foundational condition for prosperity under free-market mechanism while prosperity provides more freedom for people by economic independence.

Conclusion

In spite of significance of Thatcherism in Conservative politics, it appears to be on the linage of ideology of the Conservative Party. Also it is revealed to have great level of consistency and coherence as a political ideology through the analysis. And there is little difference of it with the ideology of Major Government. So these two ideologies could be summarised as follows: in order to achieve freedom and prosperity of society under economic difficulties mainly due to too much state control, government should provide more economic liberty to business sector with policies for financial stability as well as more ownership to people for more incentives and independence. This is right frame work for people to enjoy their freedom and prosper under completion and choice with their own responsibility.

Figure 1 Structure of ideology of Conservative Government in 1980s and 1990s

There has been no government severely suffered such a sudden and enduring political decline like Major government in Britain (Kavanagh, 1997). Disastrous forced exit of Britain from the ERM significantly damaged Conservative’s reputation of economic competence which had been most symbolic feature of them against Labour (Dorey, 1999; Gilmour & Garnett, 1997) then suffered with a 20 per cent deficit in opinion polls behind Labour (Kavanagh, 1997). It was just five months later since election victory in 1992. It was just starting point of downfall of Major Government. The worst popularity of government since opinion measured, and catastrophic performance in local and European election 1994 followed while, in the Opposition, new leadership emerged with Tony Blair titled ‘New Labour’.

Bibliography

Ball, S., & Holliday, I. (2002). Mass Conservatism: an introduction. In S. Ball & I. Holliday (Eds.), Mass Conservatism: the Conservatives and the public since the 1880s. London: Frank Cass.

Charmley, J. (1996). A history of Conservative politics, 1900-1996. London: Macmillan.

Conservative Party. (1979). 1979 Conservative Party Manifesto: Conservative Party.

Conservative Party. (1983). 1983 Conservative Party Manifesto: Conservative Party.

Conservative Party. (1987). 1987 Conservative Party Manifesto: Conservative Party.

Conservative Party. (1992). 1992 Conservative Party Manifesto: Conservative Party.

Dorey, P. (Ed.). (1999). The Major premiership: politics and policies under John Major, 1990-97. London: Macmillan.

Ellison, N. (2000). Labour and welfare politics. In B. Brivati & R. Heffernan (Eds.), The Labour Party: a centenary History. London: Macmillan.

Evans, B., & Taylor, A. (1996). From Salisbury to Major: continuity and change in Conservative politics. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Gamble, A. (1983). Thatcherism and Conservative politics. In S. Hall & M. Jacques (Eds.), The politics of Thatcherism. London: Lawrence and Wishart.

Gilmour, I., & Garnett, M. (1997). Drifting with dogma. In Whatever happened to the Tories: the Conservative party since 1945. London: Fourth Estate.

Green, E. H. H. (2002). Thatcherism: a historical perspective. In Ideologies of Conservatism: Conservative political ideas in the twentieth centry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hall, S. (1983). The great moving right show. In S. Hall & M. Jacques (Eds.), The politics of Thatcherism. London: Lawrence and Wishart.

Holmes, M. (1989). Thatcherism: scope and limits, 1983-87. London: Macmillan.

Humphrey, M. (2005). (De)Contesting ideology: the struggle over the meaning of the struggle over meaning. Critical review of international social and political philosophy, 8(2), 225-246.

Hurd, D. (1988). Citizenship in the Tory democracy. New statesman(29 April).

Jessop, B., Bonnett, K., Bromley, S., & Ling, T. (1988). Thatcherism: a tale of two nations. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Kavanagh, D. (1990). A New Right? In Thatcherism and British politics: the end of consensus? (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kavanagh, D. (1997). The reordering of British politics: Politics after Thatcher. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lynch, P. (1999). The politics of nationhood: sovereignty, Britishness and Conservative politics. London: Macmillan Press LTD.

Major, J. (1990). speech at Queen Elizabeth 2 conference centre: Conservative Party.

Major, J. (1991a). speech at the Lord Mayor's Banquet: Conservative Party.

Major, J. (1991b). speech to Centre for Policy Studies: Conservative Party.

Major, J. (1991c). speech to the Conservative Party Conference: Conservative Party.

Major, J. (1992a). Speech to 32th Young Conservative Conference: Conservative Party.

Major, J. (1992b). Speech to Conservative Party Conference: Conservative Party.

Major, J. (1992c). Speech to the 15th anniversary dinner of the Adam Smith Institute: Conservative Party.

Major, J. (1993a). Speech to Scottish Conservative Party Conference: Conservative Party.

Major, J. (1993b). Speech to the Conservative Party Conference: Conservative Party.

Major, J. (1994a). Speech to Conservative Central Council Meeting: Conservative Party.

Major, J. (1994b). Speech to Conservative Party Conference: Conservative Party.

Major, J. (1995). Speech to Women's Conference: Conservative Party.

Major, J. (1996a). New Year Message: Conservative Party.

Major, J. (1996b). Speech to the Conservative Party Conference: Conservative Party.

Major, J. (1997). Speech to Conservative Central Council Meeting: Conservative Party.

Marquand, D. (1988). The paradoxes of Thatcherism. In R. Skidelsky (Ed.), Thatcherism. London: Chatto & Windus.

Minogue, K. (1988). The emergence of the New Right. In R. Skidelsky (Ed.), Thatcherism. London: Chatto & Windus.

New Statesman. (1988). Citizen Hurd (editorial). New Statesman, 115(15 April).

Pascall, G. (1997). Women and the family in the British welfare state: the Thatcher/Major legacy. Social Policy and Administration, 31(3), 290-305.

Riddell, P. (1985). The Thatcher Government. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Thatcher, M. (1975a). Speech at the Institute of Socio-Economic Studies: Margaret Thatcher Foundation.

Thatcher, M. (1975b). Speech to Conservative Party Conference: Margaret Thatcher Foundation.

Thatcher, M. (1976a). Speech at Kensington Town Hall: Margaret Thatcher Foundation.

Thatcher, M. (1976b). Speech to Conservative Party Conference: Margaret Thatcher Foundation.

Thatcher, M. (1977a). Speech at Zurich Economic Society: Margaret Thatcher Foundation.

Thatcher, M. (1977b). Speech on Europe: Margaret Thatcher Foundation.

Thatcher, M. (1977c). Speech to Conservative Party Conference: Margaret Thatcher Foundation.

Thatcher, M. (1977d). Speech to Greater London Young Conservatives: Margaret Thatcher Foundation.

Thatcher, M. (1978a). Speech to Conservative Party Conference: Margaret Thatcher Foundation.

Thatcher, M. (1978b). Speech to the Bow Group: Margaret Thatcher Foundation.

Thatcher, M. (1979a). Speech to Conservative Party Conference: Margaret Thatcher Foundation.

Thatcher, M. (1979b). Speech to Conservative Party Rally in Cardiff: Margaret Thatcher Foundation.

Thatcher, M. (1979c). Winston Churchill Memorial Lecture: Margaret Thatcher Foundation.

Thatcher, M. (1980a). Speech at Lord Mayor's Banquet: Margaret Thatcher Foundation.

Thatcher, M. (1980b). Speech to Conservative Party Conference: Margaret Thatcher Foundation.

Thatcher, M. (1981a). Speech at Conservative Party Conference: Margaret Thatcher Foundation.

Thatcher, M. (1981b). Speech at Lord Mayor's Banquet: Margaret Thatcher Foundation.

Thatcher, M. (1982a). Speech at Lord Mayor's Banquet: Margaret Thatcher Foundation.

Thatcher, M. (1982b). Speech to Conservative Party Conference: Margaret Thatcher Foundation.

Thatcher, M. (1982c). Speech to Conservative Rally at Cheltenham: Margaret Thatcher Foundation.

Thatcher, M. (1983a). Speech in Cardiff.: Margaret Thatcher Foundation.

Thatcher, M. (1983b). Speech to Conservative Party Conference: Margaret Thatcher Foundation.

Thatcher, M. (1984a). Speech at Lord Mayor's Banquet: Margaret Thatcher Foundation.

Thatcher, M. (1984b). Speech to Conservative Party Conference: Margaret Thatcher Foundation.

Thatcher, M. (1985). Speech to Scottish Party Conference: Margaret Thatcher Foundation.

Thatcher, M. (1986a). Speech at Lord Mayor's Banquet: Margaret Thatcher Foundation.

Thatcher, M. (1986b). Speech to Conservative Party Conference: Margaret Thatcher Foundation.

Thatcher, M. (1987a). Speech at Lord Mayor's Banquet: Margaret Thatcher Foundation.

Thatcher, M. (1987b). Speech to Conservative Party Conference: Margaret Thatcher Foundation.

Thatcher, M. (1987c). Speech to Scottish Conservative Party Conference: Margaret Thatcher Foundation.

Thatcher, M. (1988a). Speech at Lord Mayor's Banquet: Margaret Thatcher Foundation.

Thatcher, M. (1988b). Speech to Centre for Policy Studies: Margaret Thatcher Foundation.

Thatcher, M. (1988c). Speech to Conservative Party Conference: Margaret Thatcher Foundation.

Thatcher, M. (1989a). Speech at Lord Mayor's Banquet: Margaret Thatcher Foundation.

Thatcher, M. (1989b). Speech to Conservative Party Conference: Margaret Thatcher Foundation.

Thatcher, M. (1990a). Speech at Lord Mayor's Banquet: Margaret Thatcher Foundation.

Thatcher, M. (1990b). Speech to Conservative Party Conference: Margaret Thatcher Foundation.

Thatcher, M. (1990c). Speech to the Aspen Institute: Margaret Thatcher Foundation.

Wilding, P. (1992). The British welfare state: Thatcherism's enduring legacy. Policy and Politics, 20, 201-212.

Willetts, D. (1992). Modern Conservatism. London: Penguin Books.

Wilson, E. (1992). A very British miracle: the failure of Thatcherism. London: Pluto Press.