Reviewing politics
and culture since 1913

  1. Politics
30 December 2010

Is Cameron a Thatcher or a Macmillan?

The pair clashed over the economy in 1980, but which is David Cameron’s guiding spirit?

By George Eaton

Of all the documents released today under the 30-year rule, perhaps the most striking is the former prime minister Harold Macmillan’s memorandum to Margaret Thatcher on the economy.

In it, he refers to the sense of “shock” to the nation caused by Thatcher’s hardline monetarist policies and contrasts this (rather sniffily) with the “sense of exhilaration” among her supporters. He goes on to warn of a “dangerous” increase in unemployment and concludes: “Devisive [sic] politics in a democratic system are unlikely to become effective even if such methods were desirable.” Sound familiar? Substitute David Cameron for Margaret Thatcher and all the same criticisms would still apply.

Thatcher, of course, rejected Macmillan’s appeal for a return to “consensus politics” and at the 1980 Conservative conference famously declared: “The lady’s not for turning.”

New year, new read. Save 40% off an annual subscription this January.

All of which raises the question: is Cameron a Thatcher or a Macmillan?

The Prime Minister is an admirer of Supermac (he even had a picture of his fellow Old Etonian above his desk in opposition) and, as the coalition agreement proved, a believer in pluralism. His political pragmatism and his belief in the “big society” (not words that could ever have passed Thatcher’s lips) also suggest a greater affinity with Macmillan. But on economics, Cameron remains a child of Thatcher. Unlike Macmillan, who famously attacked Thatcher’s privatisations as “selling off the family silver”, the Tory leader has an ideological attachment to free-market economics and to the small state.

In one of the most revealing exchanges since he entered government, Cameron memorably warned a Fire Brigade worker that the cuts to public services would be permanent. He said: “[T]he direct answer to your question, should we cut things now and go back later and try and restore them later, [is] I think we should be trying to avoid that approach.” The deficit merely provided the opportunity to make the cuts.

Select and enter your email address Your weekly guide to the best writing on ideas, politics, books and culture every Saturday. The best way to sign up for The Saturday Read is via saturdayread.substack.com The New Statesman's quick and essential guide to the news and politics of the day. The best way to sign up for Morning Call is via morningcall.substack.com
Visit our privacy Policy for more information about our services, how Progressive Media Investments may use, process and share your personal data, including information on your rights in respect of your personal data and how you can unsubscribe from future marketing communications.
THANK YOU

His arrogant dismissal of calls for an economic “Plan B” is reminiscent of the Iron Lady’s own insistence that she was “not for turning”. As is his declaration that “there is no alternative” to the coalition’s draconian spending cuts. Cameron may have performed U-turns on individual issues from free milk to child benefit to VAT, but there is no prospect of him performing the biggest U-turn of all and delaying the coalition’s cuts.

At a time when the economy is the only game in town, it is Thatcher, not Macmillan, who is Cameron’s true guiding spirit.

Content from our partners
Boosting productivity must be the UK’s top priority
Why a record number of Brits are travelling overseas for medical procedures
Structural imbalance is the real barrier to NHS reform

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x