Having written about UK-scepticism this morning, and its causes, I thought it worth rolling out again my description of the state that we live in here in the UK. That is what I called The Cowardly State in my book The Courageous State. I described this in 2011 as follows:
Cameron and Osborne, with their allies Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander ….have become the apotheosis of something that has been thirty years in the making: they are the personification of what I call the cowardly state. The cowardly state in the UK is the creation of Margaret Thatcher, although its US version is of course the creation of Ronald Reagan. It was these two politicians who swept neoliberalism into the political arena in 1979 and 1980 respectively. Since then its progress has been continual: now it forms the consensus of thinking across the political divide within the UK, Europe and the US.
The economic crisis we are now facing is the legacy of Thatcher and Reagan because they introduced into government the neoliberal idea that whatever a politician does, however well-intentioned that action might be, they will always make matters worse in the economy. This is because government is never able, according to neoliberal thinking, to outperform the market, which will always, it says, allocate resources better and so increase human well-being more than government can.
That thinking is the reason why we have ended up with cowardly government. That is why in August 2011, when we had riots on streets of London we also had Conservative politicians on holiday, reluctant to return because they were quite sure that nothing they could do and no action they could take would make any difference to the outcome of the situation. What began as an economic idea has now swept across government as a whole: we have got a class of politicians who think that the only useful function for the power that they hold is to dismantle the state they have been elected to govern while transferring as many of its functions as possible to unelected businesses that have bankrolled their path to power.
I stand by that description. Things have got worse since then. And the result is the collapse of government as we have known it.
It's time to recreate a Courageous State.
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:
Is there an economic crisis now? I certainly see one in Greece, Spain and Italy with youth unemployment so high and there effectively being a wasted generation because of the single currency. I see an economic and humanitarian crisis in Venezuela through disaster economics and a corrupt government. In the U.K. I agree reductions in benefits need to be addressed ASAP. But to describe it as a crisis and by doing so draw comparisons with crisis elsewhere to my mind is scaremongering to just further a political agenda. If you really want to “add value” go and sort out Southern Europe and Latin America.
If you think a country that cannot feed all who live in and cannot provide them with income enough that they might save, at all, is without an economic crisis then you are exceptionally blinkered
I always find it funny (and very depressing) that we have a government who’s main idea is that the state is always worse than private enterprise at doing anything. Why don’t people pick up that this is an explicit admission of incompetence by right wing politicians?
I agree with Joe R – if there is no purpose to politicians, why do they bother running for office? Possibly the huge salary / pension, or possibly the ego trip?
Or to deliver on their belief that the state must be undermined?
Yes. But are you being just as cowardly? Insisting on maintaining the very institutions that conspire to maintain the status quo.
Voting to leave the EU, ( and indeed voting for the Brexit Party in parliamentary elections), is the most likely way to destroy the current cowardly consensus available today.
Once the current Conservative and Labour elites have been disposed of, it will be easier to build new institutions that are fit for purpose.
Most likely is a Brexit/Green two party system. Once the Greens concentrate on sustainability, rather than socialism, I think the Greens could at least mitigate the trashing of the planet.
Sorry, I don’t think voting for the current Greens would cause the shift as they are too identified with the socialists. And they haven’t made the breakthrough in the last 20 years.
Strategic voting over several elections.
And yes, the outcome could be worse, but I believe saving the planetmakes the risk is worth taking
I em entrierly confident that the EU can be reformed
I know it will be
Everything will be by the urgency of climate crisis
And rather than start again to recreate the same institutions – as pretty much we would I’ll modify what we have
That’s not cowardice – that’s what will have to happen or you nightmare is delivered
As voting for Farage – a climate denier who wants to smash the power of the state that is the one thing that can save us fr4om Armageddon – wants to do
But you’ll vote for the fascist anyway Peter
I think you might need to take a break from here: this is not the place for this discussion. We engage with the real world, and despise fascism
Peter
I have just finished reading Keith Lowe’s ‘The Fear & the Freedom: How the Second World War Changed Us’ (2017). It is a very thoughtful and reflective book and I ‘m not even sure if I agree with all his hypotheses – however.
Lowe identifies how the EU (and other post war institutions, for example the UN and the World Bank) was set up with the idea of defeating nationalism which was seen as the main cause of World War 2 by ensuring that countries (particularly Europe but he also talks about Africa and Asia) would more closely together for economic and peaceful means.
Lowe is not afraid to confront the dream with the reality but even he concedes that to a large extent, the EU project has worked in terms of keeping the peace. However, the way it works means that it is actually helping to create nationalism rather than forestalling it.
Lowe attributes this phenomenon to national populations wanting to belong to an identifiable group – a sense of belonging which I think is a viable argument and something the far right know for sure but something the Tories and Labour never did to get us enthused about Europe.
But those of us here know that it is also to do with how the post war institutions have become infected with market fundamentalism via Neo-Libertarian theology/ideology.
So lets get it straight: what has been made wrong and can be remade and that includes the EU, the UN and World Bank/IMF. And that starts Peter at home, voting for politicians and Governments who have the minerals to make radical changes.
I actually think the “cowardly state” is the product of utter laziness as well as torpid fear, especially lazy thinking. Too lazy to work out how to improve rail, NHS, prisons, social care etc. The same mentality that lazy executives display when, they deploy targets and PRP to encourage productivity, instead of analysing the system, understanding the variety of demand, planning etc.
It is also worth remembering that the arrival of neo-liberalism gave them the golden opportunity to shuck off the responsibility for running things like councils by outsourcing and PFI, and to feel in control, e.g. with the police, by enforcing the egregious Barber policy of targets and measures (which he is now inflicting on HE).
But by far, their most dangerous form of mental stupor has been the sheer refusal to examine the full implications of their policies before issuing them. This has engaged the whole nation in ongoing theatre of exorbitant corrective activity, of which Chris Grayling is the star.
Agreed
Richard I don’t understand you’re position re public ~ vs ~ private ownership and the GND.
In their 2017 book ‘Reclaiming the State’, William Mitchell and Thomas Fazi, make a compelling case for renationalising energy. “Especially when it comes to utility companies, the effect of privatisations on the product price has proven to be extremely negative. In the 34 OECD countries, for example, the average price for energy charged by the private companies is 23.1% higher than the price charged by public companies. (footnote 11)” [p250] linked to:
https://newint.org/features/2015/12/01/economic-myths-introduction/
Mitchell and Fazi continue that “The case for state ownership is particularly strong … in a natural monopoly … when infrastructure costs of set up are very high, and the resulting market can only support one supplier e.g. telecoms, mass transport, postal services, highways and public utilities such as electricity and water services.” [p252]
The electricity utility sector is also a natural monopoly due to the laws of physics and electrical engineering.
Renewable energy generation output fluctuates with weather conditions, which is closely correlated with our EU neighbours weather and so EU based imported renewable energy can never act as base load nor can it load follow.
This means it is impossible to run the UK grid on 100% renewables without load following i.e. there has to be some mix of gas, coal, oil or nuclear, or enough storage to last for days, which means that 100% renewables will demand far too much land and sea area, of the order of a quarter of the UK land for generation plant and storage systems (e.g. dams) even if they could load follow.
https://withouthotair.com/c18/page_103.shtml
http://euanmearns.com/how-much-windpower-can-the-uk-grid-handle/
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=8740
https://withouthotair.com/c28/page_214.shtml
The GND (Green New Deal) as currently set out ignores the laws of physics and the physical land / sea area barriers to the UK having zero carbon emissions.
But even if all this were not true, in contrast to your fellow MMT scholars Richard, a few days ago, you suggested that nationalisation is not necessary for the GND’s ability to address the climate emergency.
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2019/05/16/nationalisation-is-not-necessary-to-deliver-a-green-new-deal/
Then today you call for the opposite: the creation of a “Courageous State” (!) which presumably will allow natural monopolies such as the current privatised electricity utility sector in the UK to thrive, in their doomed to fail and time wasting efforts to push a 100% renewable future that cannot work?
Why instead does the GND not embrace long term sustainability reality and reject the 100% renewables as the monoculture false promise it really is? Why not instead accept that in the UK we need non-fossil electricity power generation base and load following i.e. a natural monopoly delivered by the state, as well as renewables both private and publicly owned?
Many (not all sadly) investors, politicians, civil servants, engineers, scientist the public and industry will all largely ignore a 100% renewable GND as its currently set out, because physics says it cannot work.
Natasha
We have been through all this before
And I have no regard for Bill Mitchell’s political judgement
So I will delete further comments of this sort
Richard
Richard,
No, “we” have not “been through all this before”.
What’s happened is that you’ve blankly refused to re-examine what “expert advisors” have told you – some of whom have a horse in the race – that any physical limits inherent in a 100% renewable grid (like supply fluctuation and land use) are negligible, and can be ignored.
As such, you abrogate your responsibility as someone with some influence in these matters via the GND to hold your beliefs to account.
Threatening to delete my message(s) to you, sent in good faith, is not good enough, especially as you also hold the power over discussions on your blog.
The climate emergency is far too important for such threats.
Do the work. Spend a few hours reading the links I give. Do some simple calculations yourself. Then confirm or deny the conclusions. You owe it to yourself.
And why shoot the messenger (Bill Mitchell)? Is the energy supply system a Natural Monopoly or not?
Regards.
Natasha
With respect, I am the editor here and I have noted what you have said and your style – which is a little less aggressive than that of Bill, but not much so – and am not engaging with you.
Richard