Evaluating Thatcherism: Over the Moon or as Sick as a Parrot?
| Published date | 01 February 1995 |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-9256.1995.tb00020.x |
| Author | David Marsh,R.A.W. Rhodes |
| Date | 01 February 1995 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Politics
(19951
15(1)
pp.
49-54
Evaluating Thatcherism
Over
the
Moon
or
as
Sick
as
a
Parrot?
David Marsh and
R.A.W.
Rhodes
Despite Jeremy
Moon’s
assertions we do not
claim that there was
no
signt$cant change
in
policy content
or
outcomes during the
natcher period;
or
that the entire post-war
period
is
marked by seamless continuity
We
recognise that substantial change occurred
We examine
Moon’s
sins
of
omission and
commission before arguing that
in
order to
establish the extent
oJ;
and reasons
for
change
in
the natcher period, we need
to
undertake detailed, theoreticallyinfirmed
empirical analysis rather than dealing, like
Moon,
in
assertion.
Informed debate and argument
is
the spice
of
academic
life.
As
such, we are happy to reply
to Jeremy Moon’s critique
of
our work
(Poli-
tics
14(2)). However, we would be con-
siderably happier if his critique was based
upon a solid understanding
of
what we say,
and what we
do
not say; then we could
engage with the critique in order
to
move the
debate on ‘Thatcherite exceptionalism’ for-
ward. Unfortunately, Moon’s analysis
of
our
work is partial and misleading,
so
a significant
part
of
this response
will
correct his sins
of
commission and omission.
We have no problems with being classified
as sceptics or with being linked with Brian
Hogwood in this respect. However, we would
certainly hope to be in the same camp as
Andrew Gamble.
As
Moon himself points out,
although Gamble argues that there was sig-
nificant change in the Thatcher years, he also
emphasises that Thatcher had ‘difficulties in
legitimising her ambitions’ given ‘quasi-institu-
tional and institutional impediments’ (Moon,
1994, p.47). This is not just a debating point.
Moon fails to do justice
to
our work and thus
recognise that we share Gamble’s position.
Indeed, he misrepresents our position in
order to create a ‘straw-man’
to
criticise.
Moon’s analysis seems almost exclusively
based upon our article in
Parliamentay
@airs,
all the quotations are from that piece.
We stand by our analysis in that article but
it
does seem perverse to ignore: our edited
book, in which nine different authors deal
with the extent
of
change in 9 policy areas
(Marsh and Rhodes, 1992); Marsh’s review
of
the privatisation literature (1991
1;
Marsh’s
book on industrial relations policy under
Thatcher (1992); or Rhodes’ extensive work
on changes in local government policy (see
for
example Rhodes, 1991).
All
this work is
extensively cited and, thus, difficult
to
ignore.
Scrutiny
of
it
might have corrected some
of
Moon’s partial (in both senses) reading
of
the
Parliamenta
y
@airs
article.
We do not claim that there was
no
sig-
nificant change in policy content
or
outcomes
during the Thatcher period; or that the entire
David Marsh, University
of
Strathclyde,
R.A.W.
Rhodes,University
of
Newcastle
0
Political Studies Association
1995.
Published by Blackwell Publishers,
108
Cowley Road, Oxford
OX4
UF.
UK
and
238
Main Street, Cambridge,
MA
02142,
USA.
49
To continue reading
Request your trial