Professor Tony Payne, the director of SPERI (the Sheffield University Political Economy Research Institute) has a fascinating blog on that organisation's web site. The title is 'Is neoliberalism at last unravelling in Britain?' and the essential argument is that the crisis of the British political economy has now become an urgent crisis also for British politics.
Tony provides an insightful and I think accurate analysis of the state of each of the political parties, of which this commentary is typically provocative, and useful:
UKIP is really interesting. Although there is much that is nasty about the party and its programme for British exit from the EU would be catastrophic for many sectors of the economy, it is in fact the only political party in England speaking directly to the egregious levels of inequality that have come to characterise the Anglo-liberal growth model. Many parts of England (and Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland for that matter) were left out of the growth party generated by the Britain's post-Thatcher embrace of globalisation — and they resent it. UKIP muddles this with nostalgia for a 1950s England that has irredeemably gone, and is interested only in English manifestations of this discontent, but at least it touches it. UKIP is conservative and radical at the same time.
This is what Labour has to understand, and does not.
And then there is his conclusion:
What does all of this add up to? It is obvious: a political economy that has failed its people and a politics that is lashing about wildly trying to develop a coherent response. Politics is always fundamentally a politics of political economy — the play of agents responding to and seeking to manage structural changes in society and the economy. This is the politics that we need now to be talking about in Britain. Everything else is either fluff or derivative of this core crisis.
That is absolutely right.
As to Tony's conclusion on his titled theme? Go here to read that.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I don’t think neo-liberalism is dying in this country at all. The message at its core is ‘You too can make it’ – it’s selling a dream that the more freedom you have (the more selfish you are, the more you can keep), the more likely it is you can get to the top of the income ladder.
All I see is a country that is obsessed with buying houses, new cars and the latest gadgets upon which to play with the latest app. The latter is just ‘soma for the masses’. As far as houses are concerned, too many of us want to sell the house on to whoever has the money at the highest price to fund our poor pensions and incomes – including foreign ‘investors’ as I mentioned in an unpublished response to one of your other posts about the UK as a tax haven (yes you have the right to not publish – no arguments about that).
I suppose the point I’m making is this: neo-libralism is not dying; someone has to put it to death. And who is that going to be – the Labour party? Ha! UKIP? Our unbiased press and brave broadcasters? This blog of yours? Maybe.
I’d like to think that the average UK voter is a bit more savvy than the American voters who have just voted in more neo-lib Republicans into their government. But I have grave doubts.
How can we say neo-liberalism is on the wain when the TTIP negotiations may still go through? For all we know, the latest spat between Cameron and Juncker for example is manufactured just to throw us off the scent of the TTIP negotiations carrying on regardless of wider condemnation across Europe and the input of the 38Degrees network.
So – know thy enemy. Neo-liberalism is extemely clever and calculating. Look how Lynton Crosby has even got ordinary people in this country at each other’s throats about incomes and benefits whilst leaving those doing well and are doing even better at public expense to get on with it with very little exposure. What neo-liberalism does here is to accept there is a problem (professing honesty) – but then looks for scape goats – the disabled, Europe, the unemployed, immigration -even the weather! And the good old pulic fall for it every time.
Neo-liberalism is not dying. Even when it unravels – after the 2008 credit crunch – it takes on a zombie form and keeps moving even with a more lop-sided gait. But it needs to be killed. And then a stake has to be put in its heart and left there for ever. Or its head severed.
It will take the sort of courage you talk of in your book to make that happen. And I don’t see anyone of that calibre in current politics in this country – certainly not in my generation. My only hope is that a younger generation will deal with it as the seeds of that may being laid now by this dysfunctional neo-liberal ‘market society’ we currently live – no ‘exist’ – in.
Much there I agree with
Including the power of ‘apps’ to suppress critical appraisal
The new opiate?
I was interested in this analysis of the US mid-terms which concludes that the vote for Republicans was actually the anti-neoliberal-Democrat vote:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/11/midterms-2014-red-wedding-democrats.html
Seamus Milne’s latest article in the Guardian fits with the same analysis. In fact, Jamie Galbraith (in effect) wrote in ‘The Predator State’ that the difference between the Rightwing and the Social Democratic parties was that the social democrats actually believed the neoliberal fairy-tales whereas the right knew that it was really about a return to the social-relations of the 19th century.
However, we are left between a rock and a hard place when it comes to May 2015 GE. IMO Ed Balls acting as the gate-keeper to all LP policies is a total disaster. It has become clear that Ed Balls has bought into the smoke and mirrors of neokeynesianism which is not Keynesian and not new. It is TINA.
That’s an interesting, and probably correct, view, except I don’t think of those believers as social democrats, although they do
The only party in England challenging neoliberalism and inequality?? Er….. Greens too, Professor.
Read the article and you’ll see he says that
I agree
Labour’s failure to grasp this can only be explained by psychopathology. The real tragedy is that UKIP give’s the populace a false diagnosis whilst pretending to represent a resentful and angry underpaid and stressed constituency that is turning it’s fulminations toward those who are ill and on benefit. What they need to know is that it is the private debt (200% of GDP?) that is the fundamental problem due to the renting out by the banks of the extra money denied in wages.
Labour is now beyond disgust in its craven, cringing cowardice.
I agree. The abject failure of Labour (and many left of centre parties around the world) to construct a decent narrative from the global financial crisis was truly depressing. It’s taken a while but something is finally filling the void? Very early days but hopefully the GFC doesn’t have to represent the final consolidation of neoliberalism, instead it’s destruction. Trouble is, the electoral system is going to continue to frustrate. Interesting that Jon Cruddas is now talking up proportional representation.
Graeme, you note “Interesting that Jon Cruddas is now talking up proportional representation.”
And not a moment too soon – indeed, a full 15+ years too late, given the excellent solution proposed by Roy Jenkins in his report to Blair, a solution that succeeded almost in squaring the circle of proportionality AND the (alleged!! given what it has actually delivered!!) of FPTP.
You’ve heard me post this before, but I repeat – Blair’s kicking of that Report into the long grass was his supreme act of pusillanimous cowardice, especially given that, with a majority of 176, he could have voted successfully to move the date of Christmas had he wished, so could easily have won a vote to have a referendum. Readers of this Blog will surely know that I resigned from the Labour Party over this, on the grounds that such a decision was NOT Blair’s to make, nor even the Labour Party’s to make, but was a matter for the WHOLE electorate.
And such a referendum would, I believe, have been won, giving us a half-way decent voting system that would SURELY NOT have produced the misbegotten monster that constitutes our current coalition! And would surely have resulted in more Green MP’s, hopefully of the calibre of Caroline Lucas.
It would CERTAINLY have helped stem the current disillusion with, and disaffection from, the political class of professional politicians, who are STILL not listening to the electorate, who clearly want to consign neo-liberalism and globalisation to a Guy Fawkes bonfire, but lack political leaders willing to give REAL voice to those concerns, based on REAL leadership.
Instead, they worship at the Moloch of trickle down economics, balanced budgets, small government, and even flat taxation linked to savage sanctions and benefit cuts for the poor and marginalized. Enough, already!
“…a half-way decent voting system that would SURELY NOT have produced the misbegotten monster that constitutes our current coalition!”
Obviously the result may well have been different had PR been the voting system but as things stand, the coalition between them got 59% of the vote at the last election.
Personally, I am in favour of PR even if it makes it less likely that one party can win outright and we end up with coalition government as that would be what the electorate had asked for.
One thing I am bemused by is Labour supporters claiming the current coalition has no real electoral mandate when the last Labour government got just 35% of the vote in 2005.
Something for your next blog Richard. Neo-liberalism is thriving and destroying democracy in Sheffield itself. Scotland got a fiddled vote on devolution; it doesn’t look as if Sheffield will get ANY vote on devolution to the market and the 1%. Sheffield devolution to be agreed ‘within weeks’http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2014/11/06/is-neoliberalism-at-last-unravelling-in-britain/
Sorry. Wrong link. This one. Sheffield devolution to be agreed ‘within weeks’ http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/local/sheffield-devolution-to-be-agreed-within-weeks-1-6938803
Interesting article, Richard, and insightful to a degree.
Whilst I would agree with much of the analysis of the current state of play the author makes a mistake that many of us on the left have made about the Neo-liberal agenda, namely that it is the property of the right of British politics, specifically, of the Conservative Party.
Whilst it is certainly true that the origins of neo-liberalism as an effector in British politics can be traced back to Thatcher (or even MacMillan, to a degree) it is a supra-political movement that shifts its allegiances, and invades and colonises the organisations it sets its sights on.
In post-war, post-austerity Britain the natural host for neo-liberal thinking was the Tory Party, where the restrained and cautious early threads of the movement were easily interwoven with (but not the same as)the instinctive narrative of Conservatism.
As the influence of neo-liberal thinking grew within the policy makers of that party, its tendrils reached into the press, broadcast media, and even influential seats of learning (tell me with a straight face that the Oxford PPE isn’t Neo-liberalism for Dummies).
The influence of the infiltration that began in the turmoil of post-war Britain (and Europe) culminated in 1979 with the election of Thatcher. Even then , (and I never thought I would hear myself say this) it was a slightly restrained version of the Neo-liberal agenda. The reality of an effective opposition not yet subjugated to the aims of the movement was reason for some caution.
But that was easily taken care of. By the time Thatcher was deposed the Neo-liberal tendency in the Labour Party (under the auspices of Blair, Brown, Mandelson, et al) had become dominant.
All that was required for a smooth transition to ensure continuity was a switch in loyalties by the opinion formers in Fleet Street. Viewed as a continuum the steady trend towards the Neo-liberal agenda has continued unabated since 1979, with its advocates in each of the mainstream parties preparing the ground for their successors. And so to Osborne.
The problem for the host organism is that the Neo-liberal parasite is hugely destructive. The socially and economically dysfunctional policies of Neo-liberalism are demonstrably unsustainable, discrediting, as a result, those parties that peddle them in the eyes of the electorate, and alienating rank and file membership.(Those that think that Conservatism and Neo-liberalism are synonyms should research Conservative Party Membership trends that are equally as dismal as those of the Labour Party- and for all the same reasons).
We have now reached the inevitable juncture wherein all the main parties have become damaged beyond repair.
Enter UKIP, the latest vehicle of Neo-liberalism, and Nigel Farage, its latest champion. Like the Tea Party in the US (with whom Farage enjoys a warm relationship) the UK Independence Party is the wolf in sheep’s clothing. Long since hijacked by Neo-liberalism (probably around the time when party founder Alan Sked was deposed by Farage) UKIP, masquerading as ‘the peoples army’ capitalises on both the disaffection of an electorate who have become, at best politically, economically, socially and historically, semi-literate. Moreover the ‘lovable’ slightly rag-tag and disorganised appearance propagated by Farage’s party is both an antidote (in many people’s minds) to the slick spin-machines and ‘Party Line’ of the established parties. It is also an ingenious method of obfuscation. Complicity from the Neo-liberal controlled media (who’s coverage of the party has been wholly disproportionate to its size and influence)means that Farage is rarely questioned in depth on his policies. On one of the rare occasions when that did happen the UKIP leader dismissed the entire party manifesto as nonsense. But shades of the true intent of those who really bank-roll and control UKIP do exist, for instance in the stated intent of Deputy Leader Paul Nuttall (hastily deleted but still in circulation) to privatise the NHS.
In UKIP the Neo-liberals have found their perfect solution. It is looking increasingly likely that 2015 will see another coalition government. The prospect that it will this time be UKIP/Conservative is chilling. In comparison to the current alliance which has seen at least some attempt on the part of the LibDems to reign in the worst instincts of the Neo-lib Conservatives, UKIP will pull politics much harder to the right.
Unless the Left and Centre Left (and the commentariat) begin to recognise Neo-liberalism for the supra-political parasite that it is and find (or rather recognise)common ground with those who might once have described themselves as Conservatives (easier than it might sound), the game is up.
Martin
Good comment
I agree
Labour appears to show no awareness of this issue as yet – at least if they think the answer is Alan Johnson
Richard
Good morning Richard, I hope you are well and not too uncomfortable.
AJ represents, I think, a recognition of a desire in the electorate for a leader of greater maturity than we have seen in recent decades.
But he also represents the wishes of the Neo-liberal right, that they would rather see the party turn to dust than turn socialist.
When history is written it will show Miliband’s incumbency to have been ham-strung by the constant interference of the Blairites,(much as I feel Gordon’s was) who have created an environment in which socialist Labourites can no longer operate .
It confirms what I think many people realised a long time ago, namely, that the Labour Party is a lost cause for the left.
@ Martin Snell
“When history is written it will show Milliband’s incumbency to have been ham-strung by the constant interference of the Blairites,(much as I feel Gordon’s was)”.
How I agree with this, indeed, I feel Gordon had been destabilised by the time he took over in 2007 by the constant taunting of Blair and his cronies, so that he was unable to give of his best. One only has to see how powerfully he has been able to perform, once freed of the shackles of Party constraint: it’s not just in the Vote No campaign, but in other public situations, such as at the Edinburgh Festival (my quite conservative Spiritual Director was VERY impressed by GB’s relaxed, “no notes”, warm and humorous performance there a couple of years ago. And watch him at the 2011 Bretton Woods Conference at http://washingtonnote.com/gordon_brown/).
This highlights the way the neo-liberals were able to daringly “capture the castle” right from the outset, at John Smith’s death in 1994, when GB was more clearly Smith’s natural successor than Blair. The Cafe Granita arrangement served no one well, apart from the neo-liberals, for I’m sure Gordon would have beaten Major in 1997 – perhaps less resoundilngly – and could then have handed over to a duly tamed Blair, who would not then have been able to advance his neo-liberal agenda, but would have had to work with the more “old Labour” Labour Party inherited from Gordon, which brings me to Mark Crown
@ Mark Crown
Mark, two things. First, I have to agree with you about the “bull at a gate” behaviour of the Unions in 1978. Jack Jones is said to have pleaded with them along the lines of “Keep you nerve, lads, and your self-control – North Sea oil is coming, and that will make a real difference”. And who would not agree (no neo-liberals, of course!!) that a Callaghan victory in the non-election of 1978 would have been infinitely better for the UK? The oil money would, like Norway’s, have been sensibly invested, and the lunacy of full-blown neo-liberalism (characterized correctly by George Bush Snr. in the 1980 primaries as “voodoo economics” – pity he succumbed to it when in the White House) would not have blighted our society, as it undoubtedly has done.
However, I note you end your plea as follows: “that is what I would be doing if I was David Milliband — I’d be acting as a focus or an instigator or catalyst for that. Am I to understand that you are after a “palace coup” and a return of the “King over the water”? Or is is a (Freudian?) slip? Hope so, as David was, and is, undoubtedly a signed-up member of the neo-liberal tendency in New Labour, and who also, unlike Ed, did openly challenge Gordon Brown in either 2008 or 2009, when he clearly felt he needed to. That could be interpreted as lack of courage as far as 2009 was concerned, but I think, more charitably, it was an awareness of how unhelpful it would be to his Party. No such excuse works for 2008, and here I do feel David M should have had the courage to challenge Gordon, if only to force a real election on GB, whose “coronation” was distasteful even to a GB supporter such as myself.
We’re ALL agreed, however, that unremitting struggle against neo-liberalism is what’s needed, given the waste it has wrought on our society. I’ve quoted it before, and quote it again – Tacitus’s acute observation “Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant” = “Where they create desolation, they call it peace”.
Oops – the sentence “Hope so, as David was, and is, undoubtedly a signed-up member of the neo-liberal tendency in New Labour, and who also, unlike Ed, did NOT openly challenge Gordon Brown in either 2008 or 2009, when he clearly felt he needed to.” requires the NOT.
I’m reminded of the so called “Wicked Bible”, which left the “not” out of one or more of the 10 Commandments, so as to read “Thou shalt commit adultery.”!!
Thank you Andrew, I offer my whole-hearted agreement on your points.
What form that fight takes is of course the question.
Personally I believe that any political movement that seeks to displace the Neo-literal consensus must have at its core the will and strategy to ensure that they would struggle to ‘load the bases’ in their favour again. As it stands the system exists to support the system. If that disenfranchises by proxy, so be it. The political classes would be quite happy to regard their own votes alone as mandate enough to rule us.
It’s simply not what I want to leave my children.
Richard – good to see you again – your absence has been rather like an Apollo space mission going to the dark side of the moon and losing radio contact for a while. Welcome back. Not too sore I hope.
I agree a lot with Martin above. The neo-lib orthodoxy we now have seems to have come from the anti-statist theories that came out of reactions to the communist and fascist regimes present in the second world war. The accounts given in these theories is that states are evil and coercive. But even though I know that UK governments have done plenty of unsavoury things, they have done nothing on the scale of what Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia did to their own people. In fact those politicians who got us through the second world war and beyond in the UK could be said to have been the cream of their generation – on both sides of the house. So it is sometimes hard to understand how neo-liberalism has got so much traction in our society.
What I find fascinating is the ‘cunning of unreason’ present in neo-lib accounts of how life should be. When Thatcher and Co got going with neo-liberalism in the early 1980’s, a story was created that Britain was broken and that Thatcher was the key to fixing it. Because the unions effectively committed political suicide (something that I will never forgive them for) and demanded wage inflation and called out strikes, the public had had enough so the time was ripe (for them anyway) for change. Labour had to go in the publics’ eyes and they did. If the unions and Labour had listened to Barbara Castle and instituted ‘In Place of Strife’, things may have been different. So, there is an element of opportunism in neo-liberalism – look how they have gleefully gone about creating more economic chaos since 2010 when they basically took advantage of the political vacuum and formed a government with the power hungry and rather too compliant Lib-Dems.
Lets be honest – it was called ‘Thatcherism’ when in fact you could say it is neo-liberalism really. Whenever you mention ‘neo-liberalism’ to most folk, they just don’t understand what it is. That’s also why the Tory party – who are no longer Tory but neo-liberal – still call themselves the Tory party and not the ‘Neo-Liberals’. It’s a vast confidence trick. It is a lie. This country to them is an opportunity to make money; not an opportunity in nation building or state craft.
Look how Thatcher used concepts to sell her credibility. She compared a home economics to running a country. As ever, this was like comparing apples to oranges (the two are not the same) but somehow, she managed to get a populist message across that it was. And this is the root cause of neo-liberal durability – their ability to use populist messages that although dodgy somehow capture the imagination of the public. And lets face it – they also know how to bribe people with their own money!! When Lawson reduced taxation during his debt fuelled ‘boom’, even the most middle of the road economic accounts of that exercise reckon that he should have invested in the country’s infrastructure instead. But once again, the public fell for it. And how about the Falklands war – again , the Tories used it as an opportunity to sell themselves.
And what alternative accounts have other parties sought to offer? Well, Milliband has had a go and raised issues like the cost of living crisis but he could still do much more. Here, an opportunity for neo-liberalism to persist is being created when it needs to be slain. The Labour party really do need to go for broke and put clear blue water between themselves and this neo-liberal orthodoxy. What John Smith would say now after his Social Justice work? It is the modern Labour party whose own members stand against a mansion tax!! Something has gone very wrong within Labour. It has to lose the Blairites. Instead of pinching polices from the Greens and others , Labour should be converging and aligning to promote new alliances and forge new ideas about society that turns its back on those ideas (such as neo-liberalism and unregulated markets) that have frankly not delivered. And never will. Can Labour go beyond its own tribalism and share power? I have yet to be convinced.
The thing is that neo-liberalism has been around for a long time now (30 years or more) in our country but still, the public (for the most part) haven’t got their heads around it, even though it has not worked. As a concept, its elusive but everywhere. Maybe what drives it now is the fact that with use of the world wide web etc., there is more emphasis on individualism these days and peoples concepts of collective behaviour are on the wain. Things like taxes just seem to get in the way of personal consumption (another lever that the neo-libs pull on).
But then you see the 38 Degrees network in action and you begin to feel more hope. And you also remember that this coalition government was artificially created by politicians and not actually voted for by the voters. And there are blogs like yours of course Richard.
In my response, I have tried to sum up why neo-liberalism is so resilient and hinted how we can perhaps deal with it. However, there is one more troubling point about the opposing (and more valid) ideas to neo-liberalism and that is that they seem so atomised.
Does Steve Keen work with Joseph Stiglitz? Could the two of them work with Paul Krugman and Thomas Piketty? And what about Ha-Joon Chang? Could they forge a new economics? And could you Richard work with Prof Paul Spicker at Aberdeen University to create a newly defined and tax funded welfare state? Could Satyajit Das be drafted in to create a better regulatory regime for the City (I’d like to think he’d have a crack at it)?
If there was some way of bringing all these very bright and committed people together and producing a better way forward – that is what I would be doing if I was David Miliband – I’d be acting as a focus or an instigator or catalyst for that. This is the only way I can think of for dealing with neo-liberalism – by truly mobilising and organising the alternatives and then telling people why that is a good thing over and over again.
Thanks Martin
Mark,
Whilst I agree with your summation I’m afraid I can’t share your optimism for the Labour Party. The coup that began with the ousting of Dave Nellist and Tribune has culminated in the complete control of the Party by the neo-liberal forces within. The recent removal of Dennis Skinner from the National Executive was the final Coup De (dis )Grace.
I honestly believe if Attlee were alive today he’d join the Green Party, the modern repository of British Socialist thinking. Sadly, the public perception of the Greens is too middle class to attract widespread working class support (particularly given the lack of exposure in the media. Caroline Lucas would have shown up all four Party leaders for the witless, parroting, intellectual pygmies they are had she been allowed a space in the leadership debates, hence why she wasn’t allowed a place in the leadership debates.Thank you bbc, Protector of the Neo-liberal Faith.)
What we really need is a new party, or perhaps an alliance of Independent candidates grouped around a common manifesto, that rejects the Neo-liberal divisive austerity concensus (an idea first vaunted here by Richard, I think), that has hope and aspiration at the core of its message, and that recognises that what is good for the working classes is good for the middle classes. Most of all such a movement must have the return of democratic representation at its heart.
Applications on a postcard please…