DOCSLIB.ORG

Philips, Deborah, and Garry Whannel. "Neoliberalism and New Labour: from Thatcher to Blair." the Trojan Horse: the Growth of Commercial Sponsorship

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Philips, Deborah, and Garry Whannel. Philips, Deborah, and Garry Whannel. "Neoliberalism and New Labour: From Thatcher to Blair." The Trojan Horse: The Growth of Commercial Sponsorship. New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2013. 67–96. Bloomsbury Collections. Web. 28 Sep. 2021. <http:// dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781472545145.ch-004>. Downloaded from Bloomsbury Collections, www.bloomsburycollections.com, 28 September 2021, 02:25 UTC. Copyright © 2013 Deborah Philips and Garry Whannel 2013. You may share this work for non- commercial purposes only, provided you give attribution to the copyright holder and the publisher, and provide a link to the Creative Commons licence. 4 Neoliberalism and New Labour: From Thatcher to Blair The dominant political leaders of the last 50 years, Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair, may seem like polar opposites but their similarities are striking. Strong leaders, with transformational aspirations, they each introduced policies which significantly increased the involvement of the private sector in public provision. In particular, Thatcher’s Compulsory Competitive Tendering (CCT) and Blair’s promoting of the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) established bases for this expansion of private sector provision into public services. The growth of commercial sponsorship served to associate private firms with benevolence rather than with the rapacious search for profit and to render the presence of private firms in the context of the public sector safe and familiar. The election of the 1979 Conservative Government led by Margaret Thatcher is now widely held to be a watershed in British politics, marking the demise of Butskellism and the emergent hegemony of neoliberalism. While the Labour victory of 1997 was widely celebrated by supporters marking the end of 18 years of Tory rule, it is now very clear that, despite many worthwhile social reforms and innovations, the overarching trajectory of policy and philosophy did not depart radically from the directions established under Thatcher. Under Blair, even more so than under Thatcher, new initiatives such as PFI encouraged the growth of private involvement in public provision. Three key elements contributed to the emergence of Thatcherism. The first was the failure of both Labour under Wilson and the Conservatives under Heath to make the Butskellite scenario (a healthy mixed economy, an expanded state and a comprehensive welfare system) work. The second element was that the level of contestation and struggle in society became more vigorous and more visible (see Hall et al. 1978). The third was that neoliberalism shaped by the writing of Friedman and Hayek, and advocating a substantial reduction in the scope of the state, was winning adherents and was being translated into a 68 The Trojan Horse: The Growth of Commercial Sponsorship practical politics and a potent ideological force in Britain and the United States. The Selsdon Group, brought together by Edward Heath in 1970, marked the first emergence of a significant free market pressure group, and by the mid-1970s, neo-liberal philosophy and monetarist economics found its organizational form as Thatcher rose to become leader of the Conservative Party. Towards the end of the 1960s, the long-term structural weaknesses of the British economy began to become apparent as the unstable cycle of boom and recession was to prove ultimately unmanageable either by Wilson’s Labour or Heath’s Conservative governments. During the 1970s, Heath’s policies proved unable to make an impact on the United Kingdom’s structural economic problems. Struggling with the onset of both stagnation and inflation, dubbed ‘stagflation’, and damaged further by the OPEC (Oil Petroleum Exporting Countries)-inspired oil price rises of 1973, the Heath government of 1970–74 failed in the end to win decisive public support for a showdown with the trade unions. Within 2 years of taking office in 1974, growing economic problems forced the Labour government to go to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), who imposed a rigid monetarist economic framework that presaged the fuller implementation of this strategy after the election to power of the Conservatives under Margaret Thatcher in 1979.1 While the 1979 election of the Conservative government led by Margaret Thatcher serves as a convenient watershed, the transition from Butskellism to Thatcherism has to be regarded as a process that began in the 1960s, unravelling the contradictions inherent in Labour’s managerialist vision of the expanded state. The Labour Party in opposition had been, for almost the entire twentieth century, the primary focus of the aspirations of ordinary working people and of organized labour. The Labour Party in power, unwilling or unable to introduce any profound economic restructuring, finds itself in the position of having to discipline and limit those aspirations (see Hall 1983, Hall et al. 1978). Such an unstable equilibrium is always precarious, and it is striking that, before Blair, Labour had never been able to string together two full terms in office. It was during the 1970s that the discursive political elements that were to shape the Thatcher government began to coalesce and gain credence. For Thatcher, monetarist economics were to be given full rein – the medicine would hurt, but it would be ‘good for us’. Unemployment would be allowed to rise, ‘squeezing inflation from the system’. For individuals, the safety net of the state would be diminished, and for industry, ‘lame ducks’ would no longer be ‘propped up’. Enterprise would be rewarded and an enterprise culture fostered. There was, Milton Friedman asserted, no such thing as a free lunch; indeed, Neoliberalism and New Labour: From Thatcher to Blair 69 in the later words of the anti-hero of the film Wall Street (1987), lunch was for wimps. In such a climate, it was easy to see how requests from the arts world for greater state funding might fall on deaf ears, while the growth of commercial sponsorship would be seen as a solution to arts funding. Disillusion with Labour during the 1970s fostered a more radical challenge from a stronger and more confident left. A campaign for Labour Party Democracy began a fight to establish the right of members to de-select candidates and MPs and to remove the power of the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) to select the leader.2 Outside the Labour Party, various modes of struggle were highly visible – union struggles, women’s movement campaigns and the anti-Nazi league. There was a growth of support for revolutionary socialist groups, and of public interest in left alternatives, in part generated by the debate within the British Communist Party over the British Road to Socialism.3 This ‘moment’ peaked during the so-called ‘winter of discontent’, when a combination of Labour Party ineptitude, trade union anger, popular press venom and tactical acumen by the Conservative Party laid the ground for the victory of Margaret Thatcher in 1979. Thatcher was able to portray Britain as being in a bad state, beset with strikes, with the piles of rat-infested garbage in Leicester Square providing a potent symbol. On entering Number 10 Downing Street she proclaimed ‘where there is discord, may we bring harmony’. Seldom has a public pronouncement proved quite so inaccurate. During this erosion of the Butskellite hegemony, a new political configuration was gathering strength, fuelled by the economic theories of Friedman and Hayek and translated to the British context partly through the Selsdon Group, and through the austere and monkish brain of Keith Joseph. Arguably, the declining power of concepts of public service and community has its beginnings here. In the last 30 years, neoliberalism has become a dominant ideological and economic force. It has won support within elements of the political classes in America, Europe and Asia. Through the power of the United States and institutions such as the World Bank, the IMF and GATT, the neo-liberal agenda has been forced on countries around the world which have needed financial support (see Klein 2007).4 The election of the Thatcher Government in 1979 and the election of Ronald Reagan as president of the United States in 1980 marked a great leap forward in the struggle of neoliberalism for hegemony. Thirty years on from this moment, neoliberal economics and its associated political strategies have indeed become hegemonic and, through the power of the IMF, GATT and the World Bank, have been imposed around the world: on any country that falls into debt and requires support, on developing countries who need aid and on the Eastern European countries who were part of the Soviet bloc 70 The Trojan Horse: The Growth of Commercial Sponsorship until 1992. The current Euro crisis constitutes a current example – Greece, Cyprus and Spain are subject to stringent regulations and conditions in order to qualify for support. It is pertinent to examine the economic analyses of two key figures, Friedman and Hayek, who were influences on Thatcher and ‘Reaganomics’ and whose thinking has shaped contemporary academic economics. Milton Friedman (1912–2006) was born in Brooklyn to Jewish immigrants from Austria-Hungary. He spent the bulk of his professional life at the University of Chicago (1946–77), where he played a formative role in the development of neo-liberalism and in shaping the intellectual community which became known as the Chicago School of Economics. Philosophically, neoliberalism depends on a denial of the shared communal and interdependent interests of humanity. In Capitalism and Freedom (1962), Friedman asserts
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Father of the House Sarah Priddy
    BRIEFING PAPER Number 06399, 17 December 2019 By Richard Kelly Father of the House Sarah Priddy Inside: 1. Seniority of Members 2. History www.parliament.uk/commons-library | intranet.parliament.uk/commons-library | [email protected] | @commonslibrary Number 06399, 17 December 2019 2 Contents Summary 3 1. Seniority of Members 4 1.1 Determining seniority 4 Examples 4 1.2 Duties of the Father of the House 5 1.3 Baby of the House 5 2. History 6 2.1 Origin of the term 6 2.2 Early usage 6 2.3 Fathers of the House 7 2.4 Previous qualifications 7 2.5 Possible elections for Father of the House 8 Appendix: Fathers of the House, since 1901 9 3 Father of the House Summary The Father of the House is a title that is by tradition bestowed on the senior Member of the House, which is nowadays held to be the Member who has the longest unbroken service in the Commons. The Father of the House in the current (2019) Parliament is Sir Peter Bottomley, who was first elected to the House in a by-election in 1975. Under Standing Order No 1, as long as the Father of the House is not a Minister, he takes the Chair when the House elects a Speaker. He has no other formal duties. There is evidence of the title having been used in the 18th century. However, the origin of the term is not clear and it is likely that different qualifications were used in the past. The Father of the House is not necessarily the oldest Member.
    [Show full text]
  • Loony Leftie’ a BBC Documentary Team Followed Former Militant firebrand Derek ‘Degsy’ Hatton As He Prepared to Celebrate His 61St Birthday
    TUESDAY M.E.N.JANUARY 13, 2009 FEATURES « 9 It’s me time now for former ‘loony leftie’ A BBC documentary team followed former Militant firebrand Derek ‘Degsy’ Hatton as he prepared to celebrate his 61st birthday. Simon Donohue joined them. BBC camera crew is too. He takes 24 vitamin tablets a day, thority houses were built and it was watching Derek Hatton has done for 15 years and regularly recently suggested that Liverpool’s as he works up a sweat submits his body to a ‘full Bupa MoT’. council tax payers are still paying for at Total Fitness, in Al- The only trigger he can identify for them. trincham. his fanatical fitness regime was hav- Only two years after taking office, This is where you’ll ing his mum die on the operating ta- Hatton and his council were de- findA him four times a week, usually be- ble during a heart bypass operation nounced from the stage of the Labour fore breakfast because it puts him in a because she had a faulty valve which Party conference, where Neil Kin- ‘winning mood’ for the rest of the day. could have been detected. nock condemned the declarations of He takes on a punch bag, then at- “I’m going to be the first person in ‘far-fetched resolutions’ and spoke of tacks a treadmill and set of weights. the history of the universe who the ‘grotesque chaos’ of a Labour He stops to explain the filming is doesn’t die,” he winks. council ‘hiring taxis to scut- timed to coincide with his 61st… and He’s been living in Bow- ‘If it was 1983 tle around a city handing out I’m staggered.
    [Show full text]
  • 'The Left's Views on Israel: from the Establishment of the Jewish State To
    ‘The Left’s Views on Israel: From the establishment of the Jewish state to the intifada’ Thesis submitted by June Edmunds for PhD examination at the London School of Economics and Political Science 1 UMI Number: U615796 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U615796 Published by ProQuest LLC 2014. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 F 7377 POLITI 58^S8i ABSTRACT The British left has confronted a dilemma in forming its attitude towards Israel in the postwar period. The establishment of the Jewish state seemed to force people on the left to choose between competing nationalisms - Israeli, Arab and later, Palestinian. Over time, a number of key developments sharpened the dilemma. My central focus is the evolution of thinking about Israel and the Middle East in the British Labour Party. I examine four critical periods: the creation of Israel in 1948; the Suez war in 1956; the Arab-Israeli war of 1967 and the 1980s, covering mainly the Israeli invasion of Lebanon but also the intifada. In each case, entrenched attitudes were called into question and longer-term shifts were triggered in the aftermath.
    [Show full text]
  • Compassthe DIRECTION for the DEMOCRATIC LEFT
    compassTHE DIRECTION FOR THE DEMOCRATIC LEFT MAPPING THE CENTRE GROUND Peter Kellner compasscontents Mapping the Centre Ground “This is a good time to think afresh about the way we do politics.The decline of the old ideologies has made many of the old Left-Right arguments redundant.A bold project to design a positive version of the Centre could fill the void.” Compass publications are intended to create real debate and discussion around the key issues facing the democratic left - however the views expressed in this publication are not a statement of Compass policy. compass Mapping the Centre Ground Peter Kellner All three leaders of Britain’s main political parties agree on one thing: elections are won and lost on the centre ground.Tony Blair insists that Labour has won the last three elections as a centre party, and would return to the wilderness were it to revert to left-wing policies. David Cameron says with equal fervour that the Conservatives must embrace the Centre if they are to return to power. Sir Menzies Campbell says that the Liberal Democrats occupy the centre ground out of principle, not electoral calculation, and he has nothing to fear from his rivals invading his space. What are we to make of all this? It is sometimes said that when any proposition commands such broad agreement, it is probably wrong. Does the shared obsession of all three party leaders count as a bad, consensual error – or are they right to compete for the same location on the left-right axis? This article is an attempt to answer that question, via an excursion down memory lane, a search for clear definitions and some speculation about the future of political debate.
    [Show full text]
  • "The Problem of Predicting What Will Last"
    Allan Massie, "The Problem of Predicting What Will Last" Booksonline, with Amazon.co.uk (An Electronic Telegraph Publication) 4 January 2000 As our Book of the Century series concludes, Allan Massie compares the list with one published by The Daily Telegraph 100 years ago EACH WEEK for the past two years The Daily Telegraph’s literary editor has asked a contributor to name and describe his or her "Book of the Century", and today the series concludes with Arthur C. Clarke’s choice. The full selection invites comparison with a list drawn up by The Telegraph a century ago; we print both here. The comparison cannot, however, be exact. All the books chosen in 1899 were fiction - the paper offered its readers the "100 Best Novels in the World", selected by the editor "with the assistance of Sir Edwin Arnold, K. C. I. E, H. D. Traill, D. C. L, and W. L. Courtney, LL. D.". The modern list includes poetry, plays, history, diaries, philosophy, economics, memoirs, biography and travel writing. It is certainly eclectic, ranging from Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, selected by David Sylvester, to The Wind in the Willows, chosen by John Bayley, and Down with Skool, Wendy Cope’s Book of the Century. The 1899 list, on offer at the time in a cloth-bound edition at nine guineas the lot (easy terms available), is homogeneous, as the modern one is not, not only because it consists entirely of works of fiction but also because the selection was made by a small group. And since they were picking the 100 Best Novels, they were able to include books that nobody might name as a single "Book of the Century" but which many might put in their top 20 or so.
    [Show full text]
  • New Labour, Old Morality
    New Labour, Old Morality. In The IdeasThat Shaped Post-War Britain (1996), David Marquand suggests that a useful way of mapping the „ebbs and flows in the struggle for moral and intellectual hegemony in post-war Britain‟ is to see them as a dialectic not between Left and Right, nor between individualism and collectivism, but between hedonism and moralism which cuts across party boundaries. As Jeffrey Weeks puts it in his contribution to Blairism and the War of Persuasion (2004): „Whatever its progressive pretensions, the Labour Party has rarely been in the vanguard of sexual reform throughout its hundred-year history. Since its formation at the beginning of the twentieth century the Labour Party has always been an uneasy amalgam of the progressive intelligentsia and a largely morally conservative working class, especially as represented through the trade union movement‟ (68-9). In The Future of Socialism (1956) Anthony Crosland wrote that: 'in the blood of the socialist there should always run a trace of the anarchist and the libertarian, and not to much of the prig or the prude‟. And in 1959 Roy Jenkins, in his book The Labour Case, argued that 'there is a need for the state to do less to restrict personal freedom'. And indeed when Jenkins became Home Secretary in 1965 he put in a train a series of reforms which damned him in they eyes of Labour and Tory traditionalists as one of the chief architects of the 'permissive society': the partial decriminalisation of homosexuality, reform of the abortion and obscenity laws, the abolition of theatre censorship, making it slightly easier to get divorced.
    [Show full text]
  • A Measles Epidemic in New Zealand: Why Did This Occur and How Can We Prevent It Occurring Again?
    Journal of the New Zealand Medical Association Vol 132 | No 1504 | 25 October 2019 A measles epidemic in New Zealand: Why did this occur and how can we prevent it occurring again? An open-label feasibility study of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for treatment-resistant depression in the New Zealand healthcare context The burden of alcohol-related presentations to a busy urban New Zealand hospital emergency department Gender and The motivations Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae bacteraemia in the surgical behind science an immunocompromised host: the unexpected profession denial complication of a crustacean altercation Publication Information published by the New Zealand Medical Association NZMJ Editor NZMA Chair Professor Frank Frizelle Dr Kate Baddock NZMJ Production Editor NZMA Communications Manager Rory Stewart Diana Wolken Other enquiries to: NZMA To contribute to the NZMJ, fi rst read: PO Box 156 www.nzma.org.nz/journal/contribute The Terrace Wellington 6140 © NZMA 2019 Phone: (04) 472 4741 To subscribe to the NZMJ, email [email protected] Subscription to the New Zealand Medical Journal is free and automatic to NZMA members. Private subscription is available to institutions, to people who are not medical practitioners, and to medical practitioners who live outside New Zealand. Subscription rates are below. All access to the NZMJ is by login and password, but IP access is available to some subscribers. Read our Conditions of access for subscribers for further information www.nzma.org.nz/journal/subscribe/conditions-of-access If you are a member or a subscriber and have not yet received your login and password, or wish to receive email alerts, please email: [email protected] The NZMA also publishes the NZMJ Digest.
    [Show full text]
  • Family First New Zealand V Attorney-General [2020] Nzca 366
    FAMILY FIRST NEW ZEALAND V ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2020] NZCA 366 Court of Appeal of New Zealand, Clifford, Gilbert and Stevens JJ, 27 August 2020 Appeal seeking registration of a charity with a purpose of promoting traditional family values Key words: Charity, New Zealand, Charitable Purposes, Advocacy, Family, Ancillary Purposes, Education, Fourth Head, Human Rights 1. Family First New Zealand (Family First) was first deregistered by the New Zealand Charities Registration Board (the Board) in 2013, and over the next seven years, there were five decisions about their charitable status (Family First New Zealand v Charities Registration Board [2018] NZHC 2273; Family First New Zealand [2015] NZHC 1493). 2. In a split decision Clifford and Stevens JJ, Gilbert J dissenting, the Court of Appeal set aside the Board’s decision and declared that Family First qualified for registration under the Charities Act 2005 (NZ). 3. Family First takes a relatively traditional approach to the importance of families and marriage. Since its establishment in 2006 it has engaged in community discussions on divorce, prostitution, pornography, broadcasting standards and censorship, availability of alcohol and tobacco, gambling, abortion, euthanasia, embryonic cell research and the “anti-smacking” legislation. It has done this in many ways including published opinions, polemics and dissemination of various forms of research. First deregistration decision1 4. Family First was registered by the Board in 2007, but was deregistered in 2017. The Board summarised their reasons as follows (at [18]): First, the Trust’s main purpose is to promote points of view about family life, the promotion of which is a political purpose because the points of view do not have a public benefit that is self-evident as a matter of law.
    [Show full text]
  • Werner Herzog Interview with a Legend
    July/August 2019 Werner Herzog Interview with a legend David Harewood | Alex Scott | The South Bank Show CREATE MAXIMUM IMPACT WITH MUSIC A collection of epic music composed, recorded and produced specifically for film trailers and broadcast programming, from stirring emotional drama to apocalyptic action. AVAILABLE FOR LICENCE AT AUDIONETWORK.COM/DISCOVER/MAXIMUMIMPACT FIND OUT MORE: Rebecca Hodges [email protected] (0)207 566 1441 1012-RTS ADVERTS-MAX_IMPACT-V2.indd 1 25/06/2019 09:31 Journal of The Royal Television Society July/August 2019 l Volume 56/7 From the CEO We have just enjoyed We had a full house as some of televi- creative icon, Werner Herzog. His new two outstanding sion’s most successful storytellers BBC Arena film, focusing on his rela- national RTS events, shared their approaches to their craft. tionship with Bruce Chatwin, is some- the RTS Student Tele- I am very grateful to the event’s joint thing to look forward to this autumn. vision Awards and a organisers, Directors Cut Productions, Don’t miss Simon Shaps’s incisive live South Bank Show Sky Arts and Premier. review of a new book that analyses the special devoted to the I am thrilled that Alex Scott found the recent battle to own Sky, and Stewart art of screenwriting. Many thanks to time to write this edition’s Our Friend Purvis’s account of how the politics of all of you who worked hard to make column. The Women’s World Cup Brexit are challenging news broadcast- these happen. Congratulations to all really did capture and hold the pub- ers and what impartiality means in a the nominees and winners of the lic’s imagination: England’s semi-final fragmenting political landscape.
    [Show full text]
  • A Dog's Breakfast
    A DOG’S BREAKFAST NEW ZEALAND’S ANTI-SMACKING LAW 13 YEARS ON JUNE 2020 AUTHOR BOB McCOSKRIE is the founder and National Director of Family First NZ. He gained a Masters of Commerce with Honours at Auckland University, and a Diploma of Teaching at the Auckland College of Education. He lectured at a tertiary institute in accounting and tax law for four years. In 1994, he set up a charitable trust working with at-risk youth and their families in South Auckland. In 1996 he was appointed a Justice of the Peace. From 2002 - 2006 he was breakfast/talkback host on Rhema Broadcasting nationwide radio, and television presenter on their Sky-TV current affairs show N-Zone Focus. In 2006, he established Family First New Zealand. Bob McCoskrie has authored a number of research reports, including It’s time for dinner: The Effect Of Regular Family Dinners On Family Life (2018), Defying Human Nature: An Analysis of New Zealand’s 2007 Anti-Smacking Law (2016) and was a contributor to 21 Reasons Why Marriage Matters (2009). He has had articles published in the NZ Medical Journal, NZ Herald, Dominion Post, Christchurch Press, Otago Daily Times, Newshub website, international newspapers including The Scotsman, and in community newspapers throughout New Zealand. He lives in South Auckland, is married and has three children aged 15 – 22 years old. ABOUT FAMILY FIRST NZ Family First NZ is a charitable organisation formed in 2006, and registered as a charity with the Charities Commission. Its purposes and aims are: • to promote and advance research and policy regarding family and marriage • to participate in social analysis and debate surrounding issues relating to and affecting the family • to educate the public in their understanding of the institutional, legal and moral framework that makes a just and democratic society possible • to produce and publish relevant and stimulating material in newspapers, magazines, and other media relating to issues affecting families • to speak up about issues relating to families that are in the public domain This report is © Family First NZ 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • The Politics of the Militant Tendency
    18 August 1982 Marxism Today Witch-hunts are the last thing the Labour Party needs: yet the politics of Militant are a blind alley for the Left. John Callaghan The Politics of the Militant Tendency The recent decision by the Labour Party open debate. If the ideology and political Socialist Fight was replaced by The Militant National Executive Committee to establish practice of the Militant Tendency are char­ in 1963; but, more fundamentally, from a register of organised groups within the acterised by major shortcomings they will being an integrated group of entrists in ranks of the party is generally acknowledged not be any less significant merely because 1955, the Revolutionary Socialist League to be a move against the Militant Tendency. the Labour Right draws attention to them gradually gave way to the much looser form It is possible that this decision may, by Sep­ while the Left remains silent. which is today's Militant Tendency. This tember, result in the expulsion of leading consists of a small centralised leadership figures from the group. The Labour Party Origins and nature echelon around Ted Grant, who control and has on many previous occasions taken such of the Militant Tendency1 own The Militant, supported by the bulk of repressive action against dissident — espe­ The Militant Tendency originated with a the Labour Party Young Socialist organ- cially Marxist — factions within the party tiny group of Trotskyists led by Ted Grant. istion and those who are prepared to sell the and its youth section. But the extraordinary From the mid-50s this group — known as newspaper in the parent organisation.
    [Show full text]
  • Bibliography
    BIBLIOGRAPHY A. INTERVIEWS Jacob Rees-Mogg MP (London), 9th February 2016. Jesse Norman MP (London), 12th September 2016. Nicholas Winterton (Cheshire), 23rd September 2016. Ann Winterton (Cheshire), 23rd September 2016. Peter Hitchens (London), 11th October 2016. Anne Widdecombe (London), 11th October 2016. Lord Salisbury (London), 12th October 2016. Sir William Cash MP (London), 13th October 2016. Sir Edward Leigh MP (London), 17th January 2017. David Burrowes MP (London), 17th January 2017. Charles Moore (London), 17th January 2017. Philip Davies MP (London), 19th January 2017. Sir Gerald Howarth MP (London), 19th January 2017. Dr. Myles Harris (London), 27th January 2017. Lord Sudeley (London), 6th February 2017. Jonathan Aitken (London), 6th February 2017. David Nicholson (London), 13th February 2017. Gregory Lauder-Frost (telephone), 23rd February 2017. Richard Ritchie (London), 8th March 2017. Tim Janman (London), 27th March 2017. Lord Deben (London), 4th April 2017. Lord Griffths of Fforestfach (London), 6th April 2017. Lord Tebbit (London), 6th April 2017. Sir Adrian Fitzgerald (London), 10th April 2017. © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2020 191 K. Hickson, Britain’s Conservative Right since 1945, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27697-3 192 BIBLIOGRAPHY Edward Norman (telephone), 28th April 2017. Cedric Gunnery (London), 2nd May 2017. Paul Bristol (London), 3rd May 2017. Harvey Thomas (London), 3rd May 2017. Ian Crowther (telephone), 12th May 2017. Iain Duncan Smith MP (London), 4th July 2017. Angela Ellis-Jones (London), 4th July 2017. John Hayes MP (London), 4th July 2017. Dennis Walker (London), 24th July 2017. Lord Howard of Lympne (London), 12th September 2017.
    [Show full text]