"All Thatcherites now"? Not us, say the voters

A new YouGov poll shows voters reject policies including the sell off of council housing, the privatisation of public utilities and prioritising inflation over employment.

"We're all Thatcherites now," declared David Cameron yesterday, implying that the former prime minister's values had become the nation's. But YouGov's new poll on her reforms suggests the voters take a more nuanced view than Cameron's narrative allows.

It is true, as Cameron said, that some "big arguments" have been permanently resolved in the right's favour. Asked whether a "stronger and more influential trade union movement would be a good thing for Britain", just 34 per cent said it would and 45 per cent said it would not. By a similar margin - 52 per cent to 27 per cent - the public agree that "companies and industries that are not competitive or profitable should be allowed to close", even if this means job losses, rather than receiving government subsidy.

The voters also overwhelmingly reject one of the policies that featured in Labour's 1983 "suicide note": unilateral nuclear disarmament. Asked whether Britain should "maintain its nuclear deterrent" or whether it is "no longer necessary for Britain to have its own nuclear weapons", 59 per cent said the former and just 26 per cent the latter. Finally, on deregulation, by 45 per cent to 40 per cent, voters agree that businesses work best when free to grow "without government interference", rather than when "strongly regulated to protect the interests of their customers and workers". In his interview on the Today programme, Cameron argued that "no one wants to go back to trade unions that are undemocratic or one-sided nuclear disarmament or having great private sector businesses in the public sector" and, in these areas, the poll bears him out.

But more striking are those parts of Thatcher's legacy that the public now reject, including the totemic "right to buy". Only 42 per cent said that social and council housing tenants should be allowed to buy their homes, with a greater number (49 per cent) agreeing that social housing should be kept in public ownership for "future generations in need". The voters also take a sceptical view of another of Thatcher's emblematic policies - privatisation. A large majority - 61 per cent - believe that public utilities, such as energy and water, are "best run by the public sector", compared to 26 per cent who said they should be run by private companies. Ed Miliband has consistently rejected calls to renationalise the utility companies, largely on the grounds of cost, but expect to see this proposal pushed by the Labour left as the party's policy review continues.

The public also doesn't share Thatcher's narrow, monetarist focus on price control. Forty one per cent agreed that the government's economic priority should be to "keep down prices, inflation and government borrowing" but 49 per cent said that its priority should be "to protect jobs, ensure full employment and maintain spending power in the economy".

If it is clear, to paraphrase Thatcher, that few want to return to the days when the state ran Pickfords removals and the Gleneagles Hotel, it is also clear that most would like to see a more mixed economy, with the state intervening to provide affordable housing and utilities and to enable full employment. All of which suggests that the social democratic Ed Miliband may have a better grasp of the new centre ground than that son of Thatcher, Tony Blair.

A member of the crowd holds up a sign along the route of the procession during the ceremonial funeral of Margaret Thatcher. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty.
Show Hide image

The Brexit Beartraps, #2: Could dropping out of the open skies agreement cancel your holiday?

Flying to Europe is about to get a lot more difficult.

So what is it this time, eh? Brexit is going to wipe out every banana planet on the entire planet? Brexit will get the Last Night of the Proms cancelled? Brexit will bring about World War Three?

To be honest, I think we’re pretty well covered already on that last score, but no, this week it’s nothing so terrifying. It’s just that Brexit might get your holiday cancelled.

What are you blithering about now?

Well, only if you want to holiday in Europe, I suppose. If you’re going to Blackpool you’ll be fine. Or Pakistan, according to some people...

You’re making this up.

I’m honestly not, though we can’t entirely rule out the possibility somebody is. Last month Michael O’Leary, the Ryanair boss who attracts headlines the way certain other things attract flies, warned that, “There is a real prospect... that there are going to be no flights between the UK and Europe for a period of weeks, months beyond March 2019... We will be cancelling people’s holidays for summer of 2019.”

He’s just trying to block Brexit, the bloody saboteur.

Well, yes, he’s been quite explicit about that, and says we should just ignore the referendum result. Honestly, he’s so Remainiac he makes me look like Dan Hannan.

But he’s not wrong that there are issues: please fasten your seatbelt, and brace yourself for some turbulence.

Not so long ago, aviation was a very national sort of a business: many of the big airports were owned by nation states, and the airline industry was dominated by the state-backed national flag carriers (British Airways, Air France and so on). Since governments set airline regulations too, that meant those airlines were given all sorts of competitive advantages in their own country, and pretty much everyone faced barriers to entry in others. 

The EU changed all that. Since 1994, the European Single Aviation Market (ESAM) has allowed free movement of people and cargo; established common rules over safety, security, the environment and so on; and ensured fair competition between European airlines. It also means that an AOC – an Air Operator Certificate, the bit of paper an airline needs to fly – from any European country would be enough to operate in all of them. 

Do we really need all these acronyms?

No, alas, we need more of them. There’s also ECAA, the European Common Aviation Area – that’s the area ESAM covers; basically, ESAM is the aviation bit of the single market, and ECAA the aviation bit of the European Economic Area, or EEA. Then there’s ESAA, the European Aviation Safety Agency, which regulates, well, you can probably guess what it regulates to be honest.

All this may sound a bit dry-

It is.

-it is a bit dry, yes. But it’s also the thing that made it much easier to travel around Europe. It made the European aviation industry much more competitive, which is where the whole cheap flights thing came from.

In a speech last December, Andrew Haines, the boss of Britain’s Civil Aviation Authority said that, since 2000, the number of destinations served from UK airports has doubled; since 1993, fares have dropped by a third. Which is brilliant.

Brexit, though, means we’re probably going to have to pull out of these arrangements.

Stop talking Britain down.

Don’t tell me, tell Brexit secretary David Davis. To monitor and enforce all these international agreements, you need an international court system. That’s the European Court of Justice, which ministers have repeatedly made clear that we’re leaving.

So: last March, when Davis was asked by a select committee whether the open skies system would persist, he replied: “One would presume that would not apply to us” – although he promised he’d fight for a successor, which is very reassuring. 

We can always holiday elsewhere. 

Perhaps you can – O’Leary also claimed (I’m still not making this up) that a senior Brexit minister had told him that lost European airline traffic could be made up for through a bilateral agreement with Pakistan. Which seems a bit optimistic to me, but what do I know.

Intercontinental flights are still likely to be more difficult, though. Since 2007, flights between Europe and the US have operated under a separate open skies agreement, and leaving the EU means we’re we’re about to fall out of that, too.  

Surely we’ll just revert to whatever rules there were before.

Apparently not. Airlines for America – a trade body for... well, you can probably guess that, too – has pointed out that, if we do, there are no historic rules to fall back on: there’s no aviation equivalent of the WTO.

The claim that flights are going to just stop is definitely a worst case scenario: in practice, we can probably negotiate a bunch of new agreements. But we’re already negotiating a lot of other things, and we’re on a deadline, so we’re tight for time.

In fact, we’re really tight for time. Airlines for America has also argued that – because so many tickets are sold a year or more in advance – airlines really need a new deal in place by March 2018, if they’re to have faith they can keep flying. So it’s asking for aviation to be prioritised in negotiations.

The only problem is, we can’t negotiate anything else until the EU decides we’ve made enough progress on the divorce bill and the rights of EU nationals. And the clock’s ticking.

This is just remoaning. Brexit will set us free.

A little bit, maybe. CAA’s Haines has also said he believes “talk of significant retrenchment is very much over-stated, and Brexit offers potential opportunities in other areas”. Falling out of Europe means falling out of European ownership rules, so itcould bring foreign capital into the UK aviation industry (assuming anyone still wants to invest, of course). It would also mean more flexibility on “slot rules”, by which airports have to hand out landing times, and which are I gather a source of some contention at the moment.

But Haines also pointed out that the UK has been one of the most influential contributors to European aviation regulations: leaving the European system will mean we lose that influence. And let’s not forget that it was European law that gave passengers the right to redress when things go wrong: if you’ve ever had a refund after long delays, you’ve got the EU to thank.

So: the planes may not stop flying. But the UK will have less influence over the future of aviation; passengers might have fewer consumer rights; and while it’s not clear that Brexit will mean vastly fewer flights, it’s hard to see how it will mean more, so between that and the slide in sterling, prices are likely to rise, too.

It’s not that Brexit is inevitably going to mean disaster. It’s just that it’ll take a lot of effort for very little obvious reward. Which is becoming something of a theme.

Still, we’ll be free of those bureaucrats at the ECJ, won’t be?

This’ll be a great comfort when we’re all holidaying in Grimsby.

Jonn Elledge edits the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric, and writes for the NS about subjects including politics, history and Brexit. You can find him on Twitter or Facebook.