I've finally had a chance to have a quick look at what Nick Clegg said yesterday. This jumped out, when he was Labour bashing (which seemed his main purpose):
Because let me tell you this: You don't play politics at a time of national crisis. You don't play politics with the economy. And you never, ever play politics with people's jobs.
Hang on a minute. Look what Clegg's saying:
- When markets fail politicians should not intervene
- In a crisis politicians should shut up
- Government has no role in the economy
- The level of employment is not the government's responsibility.
That's what this means. And it's pure neoliberalism.
It's also one of the founding hypotheses of my book - The Courageous State. In it I argue that neoliberalism has bred politicians who think that nothing they can do will beat the market so they'd best leave it alone. That's what Clegg was saying - that markets should be left to sort out crises.
Neoliberal theory is wrong of course. It creates the crises we're having. And it has no solution to them. But none the less Clegg wants to walk away from his responsibility to exercise judgement, to correct market failure, to ensure we have full employment - the very things politicians are meant to do.
No wonder he's unfit for his office and his party is consigned to the history books.
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:
My interpretation of ‘not playing politics’ would be that things like traditional partizanship, spin, points-scoring and electioneering should be put aside. It’s not saying that politicians should just step away and abdicate the role they entered office to perform.
Of course, they should all do that anyway, but that’s a different matter entirely. That they don’t, and largely won’t, merely exposes what Clegg said as empty rhetoric and, oh the irony, just another example of him doing precisely what he claims he shouldn’t be doing.
Richard, it would appear that you have your Humpty Dumpty head on again. It is difficult to draw the conclusion you reach from the words of Clegg that you quote. Clegg is speaking of party politics, he is not talking about the political decisions that governments take. To translate what he said as: “When markets fail politicians should not intervene … In a crisis politicians should shut up … Government has no role in the economy … The level of employment is not the government’s responsibility” is simply crass. You could have quoted “we came out fighting. Fighting to keep the NHS safe. Fighting to protect human rights. Fighting to create jobs. Fighting for every family. Not doing the easy thing, but doing the right thing. Not easy, but right. “, it would have been far more difficult for you to provide one of your Humpty Dumpty glosses on this quote. I know that you are desperate to promote your book but I assume that even you have standards of reasoning, objectivity and integrity which are lessened by such an inane conclusion.
Oh dear….you really did miss the point didn’t you?
He was saying it’s fine to play on the peripheries and not to deal with the hard stuff
That’s a neoliberal politician for you
Crass? Far from it. Just what he said, and what he really thinks, because it’s what the gov’t of which he’s a member is actually doing
As I wrote, you have your Humpty Dumpty head on again, “words will mean what I say they mean”. I am not sure I miss the point based on what Clegg is saying. You might well be justified in your conclusion but the justification lies elsewhere as Lee T suggests, not in his speech.
Oh boy – you meant I was not allowed to look elsewhere but others were?
Come on!
Talk about dual standards
Much as I dislike Clegg and the LibDem policies in general, I fail to see how the quotation selected could possibly be interpreted this way. Quite perverse really.
Well funnily enough – several people drew it to my attention precisely because they had…..and I agreed with them
The problem is that what he said was ambiguous: does it apply to inter party politics – partizan politics as Lee T says – or to politics per se? Either way it’s empty rhetoric, like pretty much every word that comes forth from Clegg’s mouth.
“In it I argue that neoliberalism has bred politicians who think that nothing they can do will beat the market so they’d best leave it alone.In it I argue that neoliberalism has bred politicians who think that nothing they can do will beat the market so they’d best leave it alone.”
I am confused by the paradox of your obvious contempt from the actual politicians (and bureaucrats – eg Harnett) we do have in charge and your desire to give them more power. I’d be grateful if you could clarify it please.
It reminds me of the old joke: ‘the food in this restaurant is terrible – and in such small portions’. A dislike of X, but also a complaint there isn’t enough of X.
It is easy to advocating greater control for politicians to do so from the assumption that the politicians are ones you like. I’d quite like this country to be run by my mother and give her lots of power. But it’s unrealistic.
For those of us who want a smaller state we make the opposite assumption: we assume we probably won’t like the politicians WE ACTUALLY AND PREDICTABLY GET all the time, & will be suspicious of their motives (often self serving). In some cases we might positively loathe them — for whatever reason.
The paradox is that neoliberalism has corroded the ethic of these people and they need that restored by creation of a Courageous State
We once had an ethic of public service – damn it, an ethic
Neoliberalism can’t even spell ethic
But I am sure that the situation can be recovered. It’s really not hard. You just have to believe in people and not markets – it’s markets that corrupt
If indeed that is what Clegg is saying, that government’s should butt out of the market, then perhaps the state should return the favour.
No more PFI projects leeching off our NHS; no more handouts of public money to our supposedly privatised railway network; no more corporate subsidies; no more taxpayer handouts to banks and no more taxpayers money subsidising the private pension industry to the tune of billions!
Lets leave the market alone properly and see what they’ve got to say!
The paradox that Adrian cites encapsulates my ‘problem’ with your politics. But, for the record, your response to that, your genuine faith in the idea that it could be different, is why I read your blog. I respect that.
I also think that those who put their faith in the market suffer from the same problem. Perhaps some of them think that where the market has gotten us is just fine, and so they want more of that. Perhaps some of them want a different market, like you want a different state.
Personally, I think that the state and the market have colluded over decades to get us to where we are, and that neither can be trusted. I do believe in people, as a whole, but don’t see that either the state or the market is duly inclined to do the same.
Look, I believe in markets and the state
We can’t do without either
I have no belief in simple solutions from left or right
What we need is a strong mixed economy and leaders who can make the necessary decisions to balance the demands of the two
That’s what I believe in
I also believe it possible
Anything else is unthinkable – that’s why
Our problem is the economics of the market have become dominant and destroyed belief in the importance of the state
We’re out of balance – isn’t it obvious?
So people aren’t and can’t be corrupted?