I fight on. I fight to win.
– Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1979 to 1990
After its formation in 1948, the National Health System (NHS) ran into difficulties as the funding did not keep pace with the rising costs and public expectations. The proportion of the GDP spent on health fell below that of other developed countries. When a Birmingham children’s hospital started postponing heart operations due to lack of funds, Margaret Thatcher proposed a new reform, which though commonplace today, seemed preposterous at that time.
She proposed that each hospital would become its own governing body and so compete with other hospitals to provide care. People were encouraged to use private healthcare and there were tax incentives for private healthcare insurance premiums.
By 1983, there were 45,000 more nurses and midwives, and over 6,500 more doctors and dentists, working for the NHS than in 1978. The Thatcher government also asked health authorities to make the maximum possible savings by putting services like laundry, catering and hospital cleaning out to competitive tender.
The acid test of any policy change is whether it is reversed. Her health policy has not been reversed since she introduced this legislation.
The welfare state
The British public loved their welfare state to bits, and it was Thatcher’s constant criticism of it that brought her more unpopularity than almost anything else. However, very few people know, or believed, that more was spent on welfare – in places where it mattered such as education, health, social security – in the 1980s under her leadership than ever before. At least a third higher than in the 1970s.
And she did this by cutting subsidies from those whom she believed should help themselves. Arts organisations which had enjoyed comfortable government support now were encouraged to compete for private funding, thereby creating a loathing by the movers and shakers in arts for what they said was philistinism, and what was actually a removal of unlimited funds.
The civil service was cut back by some 20 per cent to 600,000, the lowest since the War and its running costs were brought measurably under control. Her government produced ‘The Next Steps’ which was radical at that time, for it said that the civil service should be seen for what they were, businesses delivering services to the public.
Thatcher succeeded in making a savings of GBP1 billion through these measures by the mid-1980s, and as she famously put it, “the equivalent of 22 new hospitals”.
Here I quote her friend and admirer, the Hon. Lee Kuan Yew, former Singaporean Prime Minister: “You have resisted the temptation to take the standard solution of fiscal stimulation to reduce unemployment; instead, you seek the slower but more lasting solution of encouraging entrepreneurs to risk their capital in new ventures and to hire workers. You have made it more worthwhile to take risks to create wealth; this requires courage in a Britain where ‘profits’ has become a dirty word…
“For nearly four decades since the war, successive British governments seemed to assume that the creation of wealth came about naturally and that what needed government attention and ingenuity was the redistribution of wealth. So, governments devised ingenious ways to transfer incomes from the successful to the less successful. In this climate, it requires a prime minister with very strong nerves to tell voters the truth, that creators of wealth are precious members of a society who deserve [the] honour plus the right to keep a better part of their rewards…”
So there you have it – how Maggie made a difference. She came to office with, as she said, one deliberate intent, to change Britain from a dependant to a self-reliant society. From a ‘give-it-to-me’ to a ‘do-it-yourself ’ nation, to a ‘get-up-and-go’ instead of a ‘sit-back-and-watch’ Britain.
Perhaps her greatest single achievement, which gave her the drive to make all the above possible, was her refusal to accept, or be daunted by, the prevailing air of defeatism which she confronted when taking office in 1979.
What I like most about her, was that she simplified everything to exactly what it was. No fancy economic jargon or ‘alien’ speak that confuses the masses. She called a spade, a spade. She made macroeconomics as simple as household management. “My policies are not based on some economic theory, but on things I and millions like me were brought up with: an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay. Live within your means. Put a nest-egg by for a rainy day. Pay your bills on time. Support the police.”
She did not believe in solving everyone’s problem by government action, believing that every individual should look out for oneself – which in itself creates character development and inner strength. She had a lot of pride in herself, having worked hard her whole life to get where she was, (maybe five times harder because she was a woman). She tried to teach a little of that self-reliance to a nation.
I give a finale to this wonderful legend of a lady next week. Please join us for the summary of the woman who I believe is the greatest leader of our times.
The views expressed here are those of the columnist and do not necessarily represent the views of New Sarawak Tribune. Feedback can reach the writer at beatrice@ibrasiagroup.com
