To What Extent Did the Thatcher and Major Governments Transform the Relationship Between Central Government and Local Authorities?

To what extent did the Thatcher and Major governments transform the relationship between central government and local authorities?

Thatcher was “determined to concentrate power in the ruling party” (Smith, 1995: pg 223), one of her tactics to accomplish which was a review of the structure of local government. A desire to concentrate power in themselves is not unusual, in governments, Prime Ministers, or politicians of any form – indeed, witnessing the reverse would strike many people as a shock – but Thatcher took this further than many. It is notable that the power of central government, and Prime Ministers, was, in a way, halted in Thatcher; when she attempted to introduce the poll tax, in what was seen by many as “an attack on local democracy” (Heppel, 1989: pg 384); even if the councils could do nothing to prevent the demands of central government, and were forced to implement an unpopular policy dictated to them from above, the power of the people could do something about perceived injustices, and Thatcher was forced to back down. This was an assertion of ‘people power’, not the power of local authorities, but it did nevertheless mark a point at which local authority regained, if not influence or command over the centre, at least a publicly perceived right to have some of that influence over their own affairs, and the financing thereof.

Central control of the local authorities was, of course, nothing new. In 1946, for example, the incoming Labour administration had set up commissions to completely review and reform the structure of local government that existed at the time (Holden, 1946: pg 533). The structure of the local authorities as inherited by thatcher, and after her the Major administration was nothing more or less than the results of all the reforms and transformations undertaken by previous governments, all of whom had had their own axes to grind, their own desires to move power and responsibilities for both services and their financing around between the central and the local layers. These were not, however, uniform; some central governments wished to increase their own power by simply reducing that of the local authorities, whilst others believed the best way to bring that about was to increase the responsibilities – and, arguably, therefore blame – placed upon the local authorities. The Thatcher administration in particular belonged to the former school of thought. 1973 to 1979, the expenditure of the local councils became, for the first time, to be thought of as part of the national expenditure, and therefore to come under the control of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister – in London. (Rhodes: pg 268) The Treasury, in an effort to control expenditure, and inflation, was quite happy to instruct local councils to cease their expansion of anything that resembled a welfare state (Ibid). By moving fiscal responsibility around in this manner, the Thatcher administration in London ensured that they had a far greater degree of control of the local expenditure of councils all across the country. This increase in central power is in line with typical central government policies, and evidence that change in a relationship does not have to mean transformation, for the change that was undertaken was simply a continuity of existing change, change designed to increase the power of the centre at the expensive of the localities, with their councils that could be easily coerced, or if necessary crushed.

In addition to these financial controls, the central government also increased its control over local authorities by reducing the things over which the local authorities had power – by forcibly selling off their assets in a process of privatisation (Rhodes: pg 387). Whatever happened to central government, whomever was elected into the town halls at the level of the local authorities, by selling off their assets and responsibilities, Whitehall could ensure that the local authorities’ power was massively curtailed, ensuring that they could not possibly challenge the central government for any level of authority. The process of privatisation is demonstrative of the way in which a temporary reduction of overall state control can nevertheless increase the power of one particular branch or section of government, because the overall decrease can hit other branches disproportionately hard, allowing the remaining power to be better consolidated.

In the British system of government, all power derives from the centre – Westminster – and all power ultimately flows there. In recent times, this is thought of as having most relevance with the devolved authorities, in Belfast, Holyrood and Cardiff, but it actually has more influence on most people’s lives through the local authorities. Power is only granted to these at the whim of central government, and it can be recalled from them as easily; the centre decides what the local authorities are going to do, the policies they should follow, and provides the bulk of the money used to pay for them, which can be used as a bargaining chip should anything that the authorities are left with prove undesirable to the party in government at Westminster at any time. Concentrating the power of the local authorities, and recalling much of it to Westminster in the manner that Thatcher and Major employed was in no way unusual, even if the manner in which they did so, for example by reclassifying the expenditure, had not been employed before and was no change from the normal manner of operations, a continuum of power occasionally moving one way, but far more frequently in the other. The relationship altered, but was not significantly transformed from the normal manner of business.

Against all odds, Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister on 4th May 1979, leading to her holding the longest tenure of any British Prime Minister in modern politics. She coined an 'ism' in her own name - 'Thatcherism' - as a result of her distinctive philosophy and approach to politics and socio-economics. She faced a troubled country, high unemployment, ferocious trade unions, a polemic public opinion, and heavy resistance within her own party (Newsinger 1992, Norton 1990). She was the first and only female Prime Minister in UK political history, and one of the only females ever to lead a major market economy.

The question of whether her reign was a success and benefitted the country is hotly contested to this day, but her success in achieving power against such odds, and her ability to control a party and a country through such opposition and difficult times suggests that she was a source of immense creativity and innovation.

Kurtzberg (2005) argues that while there were more than fifty competing