Elizabeth Peacock: Without Major, the Thatcher legacy would have been badly tarnished

THE more I reflect on the Margaret Thatcher and John Major governments, the more I am convinced that the Thatcher and Major years have to be considered together.
Margaret Thatcher with John MajorMargaret Thatcher with John Major
Margaret Thatcher with John Major

The fact that Major was considered by some to be a “grey man” hides many of his real successes. If he had not followed Thatcher, many of her initiatives could have come to nothing and would have left her period in history subject to query.

Taken together, the Thatcher and Major governments changed the face of British politics for the better. This was a turning-point in British history, re-shaping the economy and re-emphasising Britain’s role on the international scene.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Thatcher’s biggest successes were the Falklands War, the re-structuring of British industry and the taming of trade union power.

Her negative areas were the over-generosity of welfare support, the chaos of the poll tax and, I suggest, her relationship with the Cabinet and her advisors.

Prior to the Falklands conflict, Margaret Thatcher and her government were in trouble, with poor public support, and may not have been re-elected. The Falklands War changed all that and the success was recognised by the electorate in 1983.

This strong Parliamentary position then gave her the remit to develop her own policies with a re-shaped Cabinet. These policies, better-known later as Thatcherism, were based on the strength of market forces: “You cannot buck the market.”

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

An example of this was the privatisation of the substantial businesses of British Telecom, British Airways and the gas and electricity utilities being brought into the commercial sector. This substantial inflow of cash into government together, with the cash flowing from North Sea oil, was used to enhance the welfare sector.

This enhancement has been a problem for all subsequent governments and remains so today in a period of austerity.

Contrary to popular belief Margaret Thatcher, the so-called “milk snatcher”, was just too soft in the welfare sector. She had cash flowing in and allowed it to be utilised in an array of allowances and payments at levels that have subsequently been found to be unsustainable. Some of the welfare payments were so generous that certain people found it did not pay to work.

Governments have since struggled with control of excessive welfare costs stemming from the cash-rich Thatcher era.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

This is something that is not generally recognised, even in the Conservative Party. The left wing of British politics cannot attribute the description “too generous” to their hated Thatcher. In defence of the government, it seemed right at the time.

There was anarchy on the British industrial scene in the 1970s so the measures taken by the Thatcher government that brought the miners under control were a significant achievement, albeit necessitating the big fight with Arthur Scargill and his coal miners to establish the new restraining legislation.

She needed to be positive to get her policies through Cabinet. This positive approach in her last government led to her big mistake: the poll tax.

Certainly a new local tax system was overdue by the late-1980s as the existing rates system was unsatisfactory. The poll tax concept of widening the tax base had merit but it needed the long period of “tapering-in” that it did not get. The whole project was mismanaged and caused rioting in the streets. The biggest problem was that Mrs Thatcher was surrounded by “yes men” who 
did not brief her properly; she refused to listen to others and 
just pushed on.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The Major governments of 1990 and 1992 have been decried and written off as failures by many commentators. In my view, this is unfair.

In the early years of his time in Downing Street, he, with the help of Michael Heseltine, corrected the mistakes of the Thatcher period and consolidated the successes.

Indeed, if John Major had lost in 1992 and not been able to carry on correcting the problems of the Thatcher era, Margaret’s period in Downing Street would have looked significantly less successful. On the contrary, his stunning election victory in 1992 polling 12 million votes, more than the Conservative Party had ever done before, was historic.

John Major completed all his policy and manifesto commitments and, with Ken Clarke, re-shaped the economy in such a way that it helped the early days of the Blair government.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

On the other hand, his government did not get everything right. Major and others had eventually persuaded Margaret Thatcher to join the ERM. This proved to be a mistake.

Where Major did get it wrong was in European matters with a highly sceptical party. He started well by keeping us out of the mainstream of Europe with his negotiations on the Maastricht Treaty but failed to build on this independent line. In my opinion a more independent line would have been acceptable to the British people and the Tory Party would not have been so badly split.

By the end of the 1992-97 Parliament, the various incidents of Conservative misbehaviour better known as “Tory sleaze” had put a real tarnish on the party and on the Major government. He got the blame but if you analyse these incidents, they were almost all private misdemeanours over which neither the party nor the Prime Minister had any control.

Come the election, we lost very heavily and certainly could never have won. The British people wanted Tony Blair and New Labour regardless. Despite that heavy defeat, the Major years were the saviour of the Thatcher era.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

*Elizabeth Peacock was Conservative MP for Batley & Spen from 1983-97. Her memoir, A Yorkshire Lass at the court of Thatcher, has just been published by Pen & Sword, price £25. She is a guest speaker at today’s Yorker Post literary luncheon in Harrogate.