Former Conservative MP Matthew Parris was interesting on the BBC's Moral Maze last night. He argued that we are not living in an era when politics lacks ideology ( as some had suggested to be the case) but that we were instead living in an era where one ideology had completely won the debate. This was, he said, an era when free markets and market capitalism were the prevailing ideology for all in the political classes and that socialism and all ideas linked to it had been firmly discounted by all.
It was good to note that Giles Fraser had no truck with this argument, suggesting that we needed people with big ideas and ideological commitment to tackle the problems he sees on his South London doorstep everyday, whether they be poverty, poor or no housing, joblessness and more besides. He clearly implied that he did not think Parris' free market capitalism had any solution for such problems.
Fraser is right of course. But so too is Parris. The ideology of neoliberalism, that choice, competition and markets can solve all problems, dominates our politics from the right to much of the supposed left. But it is that precise hegemony that is the problem.
First of all, time and again evidence has been provided that people neither want choice when offered it, and nor does it necessarily improve lives when they have it. Power supply is the obvious example of that. I would be amazed if there was anyone who thought breaking up gas and electricity companies had provided any real benefit to the lives of people in the UK.
Second, there are also many studies showing people can be overwhelmed by choice. It can actually be detrimental to them. Power supply tariffs are an example of that.
And then the is the fact that all too obviously choice is not working. People who have to go into the market place to get a home and cannot access anything it has to offer do not have a choice at all. They are left with nothing. The politics of choice assume a predisposition of income and wealth that empowers people to decide. We have not got that predisposition in the UK.
So we do very definitely need a clash of ideologies in this country. That's because the hegemony of the market is failing us as people. And it is because the hegemony of the market is failing our politics and so our democracy.
We need the choices that I decribed in The Courageous State.
We need politcians who will tell Mathhew Parris he is wrong.
We need politicians who swill stand up for those to whom the markets deny choice.
We need to say that markets sometimes fail.
We need to say that markets do not always deliver efficiently to all, but that of course they do sometimes.
We need to say that when markets cannot deliver as well as a state owned alternative the choice the market provides is the wrong choice altogether, as the NHS is proving day in and day out.
We need to say that there is a case for delivering the best possible outcomes to everyone.
We have to say that this is only possible in some situations when we turn our backs on the market.
And we have to accept as a result that some people have to be empowered to make choices for us all - which is in reality what happens now when it is impossible to tell the difference in the electricity supplied by one company or another but it is very possible to tell the difference in health care between regions, over which we have no choice but move.
We need to believe in the big idea of community.
We need to believe in each other.
We need to believe that we are better off together.
And we need to act on that belief. Not just to prove Matthew Parris and all those politcians like him wrong. But to prove that we are right.
We can choose to do that. And that's one choice no one can take away from us.
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:
The most staunch free-marketers often respond to this criticism by arguing that the markets are not TRULY free, and that even less State intervention is required.
A feature of markets and the corporations that dominate them that we often lose sight of, is that they are controlled by people. These people are subject to the same avarice as the rest of the population, and indeed free-markets – in which profit is primary and service is secondary (as a means to make more profit) – reward the most grasping people. Corporations are not benign, brainless entities that are subject to objective universal principles, like planets that are inescapably subject to gravity.
Freeing up markets merely frees up its managers to abuse consumers even more.
All very true. Pensions are another area where choice and the market constitute the problem, not the solution.
I agree, wholeheartedly
Sorry Mr. M., you’ve lost me on that one….unless you are saying that Gordon Brown was wrong to raid the pensions of millions of savers.
There was no such raid
But candidly I have no clue what you are talking about
I have been aware of Parris’s utterly puerile and banal commentary on political life for years and don’t find him worth listening to.
If after 40 years of this ghastly experiment he can’t see that something big is wrong speaks for itself.
Neoliberalism and its trinity spirits of capital and power, only give the illusion of choice. It is based entirely around the overarching power of the Godhead of capital. Capital itself is something that only exists in the human psyche; it’s not part of the laws of physics. Money actually doesn’t grow on trees; cash, plastic, gold, assets, property are icons, amulets and holy relics of the religion of capital, a cult that has been given the power to control humanity only by people falling for the mania of capital.
Fair enough, but the neoliberals themselves are now using the same language. When Blair,Branson and Gates get together at Davos with one of Ukraine’s most predatory oligarchs under the banner of reforming capitalism, we have to believe something doesn’t ring true.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2LYV6nmG_sw
I heard a bit of him and whilst I disagree with his beliefs in the free market I agree with Richard that Parris was right to say that we do live in an ideological age – one where unfortunately neolliberalism dominates mainstream political and economic thought. He was right to tell the libertarian Claire Fox that we do not live in a post-ideological age – it’s an important point really as it denies that the current consensus is somehow value free and a ‘natural’ state of affairs.
Actually, the benefits of breaking up electricity and gas prices is plain to see.
I haven’t seen recent studies but the first decade of privatisation certainly saw very steep declines in gas and electricity prices, between 20 and 50 per cent.
As I say, I don’t know what recent studies show about the prices pre- and post-privatisation, but we do have some of the lowest energy prices in Europe.
So you picked a very poor example.
Those prices fell because of bulk price changes on international markets
So, respectfully, nonsense
The market was working quite well….then along came Ed and he decided to redesign it and ‘green it’.
Anyone who thinks the energy market is working either has their head in the sand or deserves to be called a fool
I’d suggest that the central ideology we are opposing is not ‘capitalism’ but ‘more’.
We all know about the environmental limits, the way we can’t keep growing, and the endless talk of efficiency/competition/global race/economic war etc. In reality then the mindless, greedy, capitalist money-grabbing is simply the ideology of ‘more’. More at the expense of people, society, peace, and planet.
We need to somehow re-frame the arguments so clearly that the whole ideology of ‘more’ seems stupid and alien to civilised folk, and so that the people who espouse it come across as last-century Luddites. The alternative ideology is ‘better’. Enough (or even ‘less’ I would say), but better.
Agreed
Enough ism is the way
Capitalism entails ‘more’: it is essentially and ineluctably accumulative. But Matt Sisson is right otherwise, because we are living on a finite planet, with finite resources, and the idea that individual country’s economies, and the world economy, can keep on growing every year, _ad infinitum_, is absurd, yet seems to be intrinsic to economics and political debate about economic policy. He is also right that money isn’t everything, and material values are not the only values, and that more important ones are, and have been, sacrificed on the altar of consumerist capitalism. Oh, but I have used that word, whereas he thinks we shouldn’t. Call a spade a ‘bloody shovel’!
Capitalism does not necessarily imply ‘more’ in the sense of physical stuff. It reflects consumer desires by serving those wants which people value more highly first. This could mean more stuff, but not necessarily. Increasingly we see people desiring virtual things – Internet sites, games, communication etc. which reduces the amount of physical stuff people want because data can be copied and transfered with very little use of physical resources. Indeed, this is also a levelling phenomena, although Bill Gates has more stuff than me, I can quite easily achieve as much satisfaction from reading, music, online interactions and entertainment as him, all without acquiring more than a couple of affordable devices and an electricity supply. And capitalism has made capitalists who moved in this direction extremely rich.
Here’s where we started making those arguments in the UK, with a business plan warning of the inevitabily of riots and a call for (Labour) government support.
Today Ed Miliband is talking about predistibution which seems to derive from this argument:
“Dealing with poverty is nothing new. The question became ‘how does poverty still exist in a world with sufficient resources for a decent quality of life for everyone?’ The answer was that we have yet to develop any economic system capable redistributing finite resources in a way that everyone has at minimum enough for a decent life: food, decent housing, transportation, clothing, health care, and education. The problem has not been lack of resources, but adequate distribution of resources. Capitalism is the most powerful economic engine ever devised, yet it came up short with its classical, inherent profit-motive as being presumed to be the driving force. Under that presumption, all is good in the name of profit became the prevailing winds of international economies – thereby giving carte blanche to the notion that greed is good because it is what has driven capitalism. The 1996 paper merely took exception with the assumption that personal profit, greed, and the desire to amass as much money and property on a personal level as possible are inherent and therefore necessary aspects of any capitalist endeavour. While it is in fact very normal for that to be the case, it simply does not follow that it must be the case.”
http://www.p-ced.com/1/node/76
Absolutely agree with this posting; I wrote similar in 2008: http://bit.ly/onhegemony
Believe it or not, that message about replacing free market capitalism was pitched to Bill Clinton 18 years ago. It concluded:
“Economics, and indeed human civilization, can only be measured and calibrated in terms of human beings. Everything in economics has to be adjusted for people, first, and abandoning the illusory numerical analyses that inevitably put numbers ahead of people, capitalism ahead of democracy, and degradation ahead of compassion.
Each of us who have a choice can choose what we want to do to help or not. It is free-will, our choice, as human beings. ”
http://www.slideshare.net/JeffMowatt/principles-of-people-centeredeconomics
A new report from Conservative think tank Respublica asserts that the purpose of business is to serve the common good. That’s something I can’t disagree with, since it was where we started with a people-centered approach to economic development, by saying:
“At first glance, it might seem redundant to emphasize people as the central focus of economics. After all, isn’t the purpose of economics, as well as business, people? Aren’t people automatically the central focus of business and economic activities? Yes and no.
People certainly gain and benefit, but the rub is: which people? More than a billion children, women, and men on this planet suffer from hunger. It is a travesty that this is the case, a blight upon us all as a global social group. Perhaps an even greater travesty is that it does not have to be this way; the problems of human suffering on such a massive scale are not unsolvable. If a few businesses were conducted only slightly differently, much of the misery and suffering as we now know it could be eliminated. This is where the concept of a “people-centered” economics system comes in.”
Blogging for Respublica Joanne Green of Catholic Social Teaching writes:
“Whilst staying silent on a preferred model of economic organisation, CST’s most fundamental challenge to the market, business and economy is that it must have a purpose and that purpose must be to serve wider society and indeed, the common good. The Common Good can be summed up as seeking the good of all people, with no group or individual being left out”
At the Vatican however, there’s a very clear indication of leaning toward a people-centered form of economics, as we described in our work for Ukraine:
“‘This is a long-term permanently sustainable program, the basis for “people-centered” economic development. Core focus is always on people and their needs, with neediest people having first priority — as contrasted with the eternal chase for financial profit and numbers where people, social benefit, and human well-being are often and routinely overlooked or ignored altogether. This is in keeping with the fundamental objectives of Marshall Plan: policy aimed at hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos. This is a bottom-up approach, starting with Ukraine’s poorest and most desperate citizens, rather than a “top-down” approach that might not ever benefit them. They cannot wait, particularly children. Impedance by anyone or any group of people constitutes precisely what the original Marshall Plan was dedicated to opposing. Those who suffer most, and those in greatest need, must be helped first — not secondarily, along the way or by the way. ”
In 2009 a Catholic priest. Miguel D’Escoto Brockmann, the President of the United Nations General Assembly said in a speech:
“The anti-values of greed, individualism and exclusion should be replaced by solidarity, common good and inclusion. The objective of our economic and social activity should not be the limitless, endless, mindless accumulation of wealth in a profit-centred economy but rather a people-centred economy that guarantees human needs, human rights, and human security, as well as conserves life on earth. These should be universal values that underpin our ethical and moral responsibility.”
Respublica is a think tank – how come they know none of this thinking?
The quote from Msr Brockmann is, at the same time, both wonderful & chilling. Why would we need to be told that? surely it is obvious? Evidently not.
As a young man I was quite conservative & convinced that free trade & competition would help everyone. I may have grown more left wing over time, probably since I had children, but I’m quite sure that the debate, in the interim, has swayed scarily over to the right to the point that the people I would have called Conservatives in the old days; Peregrine Worsthorne, Ted Heath, Willie Whitelaw, genuinely wouldn’t recognise where the party has gone.
If the Conservatives want to market themselves as the party for “getting as much as you can now & devil take the hindmost” then they ought, at least, to change their name because I’m fairly sure that wasn’t what their predecessors meant by “conservatism”
Contributors may like to take a look at the Campaign for the Advancement of a Steady State Economy (CASSE). The UK bit is based at Leeds University. http://steadystate.org/
The neoliberal proposition is that ‘free markets’ will deliver freedom from the dead and incompetent hand of the state. That made sense to a point in 1979 and particularly appealed to (small ‘l’) liberals of all stripes who are drawn to a promise of freedom like moths to a flame.
However, the key question is whose freedom is it to be. Neoliberals invariably imply it’s for people but in context what they actually mean is always freedom for capital. It’s a deceit that is absolutely brilliant in its subtlety and effectiveness; few if any senior politicians of the left or media commentators have penetrated it.
Similarly, a ‘free market’ used to be one free of monopoly or oligopoly and not characterised by economic rent. The neoliberals have redefined it to mean the exact opposite – one where laws and regulations don’t hinder monopoly or rent-seeking behaviour.
I am working on this issue of ‘freedom’
There’s a blog on the way
Libertarians may not like it
Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t you and some commentators here actually saying that you would deny choice to where I have my children educated because your choice is that you know what is best for them (the state) & therefore me? Moreover, you all would ban private education so that I have no choice if I choose to continue living here (do I have a choice about that?).
I haven’t
But I would withdraw charitable status and might well charge VAT
OK -you would still allow private education, but increase the costs, is what I take from that.
In your OP you say that ‘some people must be empowered to make choices for us all’
Presumably this is not Parliament otherwise you’d say it was? Then who?
Of course it’s parliament
Please do not be stupid
I am a democrat
Rolf
In this respect your arguments seem extraordinarily simplistic. There are only a limited number of places on good degrees at top-class universities. Therefore if you have an absolute freedom to spend as much as you want hot-housing your children that directly disadvantages others. Your right to hot-house is not equivalent to, say, your right to drink, smoke or take drugs & mess up only yourself. It is more equivalent to the ‘right’ to pollute which must have unwilling victims.
From a geo-political viewpoint, this is also profoundly unhelpful for the UK because it detracts from the ideal situation that the most able people in all our society are the ones that rise to achievement. Instead those who rise are the children of the wealthy.
I know I disagree violently with Richard on this as I’d like a return to some form of 11+. The right answer is debatable but I think its fair to say that allowing education to be a commodity you purchase can never be a good answer.
Oddly, the point comes up quite a bit in Co Law. Lets suppose I have 8 shares in a Co & you have 2. I’m not allowed to just go out & issue another 100 shares to my spouse & children & I can’t say “its my co, my right & its not as though I’m trying to take Rolf’s shares off him”. Your rights would be protected against my actions because they indirectly devalue yours, although directly they don’t touch them. In this case, as in many others so precious to the Right, (e.g. one’s right to pay for hospital treatment, one’s right to purchase a council house), your right, in action, devalues the rights of others. But, unfortunately, they seem to get a lot less protection in legal frameworks other than Co law!
Thanks
Welcome comment
“one’s right to pay for hospital treatment” – puts cash into the NHS.
“one’s right to purchase a council house” -the error was on the part of both versions of HMGs to not let the proceeds be used to build more homes.
Like it or not, owner-occupied homes are what HMG likes and LAs like – taxable and in the main areas with much less anti-social behaviour like dumped cars or drug dealing on the streets.
Allan
If you pay for your treatment then someone else falls down the queue. There is no way round that. Surgeons can’t operate (safely) around the clock & we don’t have vast numbers of unemployed surgeons who can just get the bus in & take their place at the operation table.
You may be right that owner-occupied homes “are what HMG likes”. Certainly Mrs Thatcher liked them & so did those arch-Tories Bliar & Mandelson, but are they good for society?
Plainly not, most people in Europe do better without, so why continue?
Repeating a mistake does not validate it.
“Mate, Monty hasn’t played 50 tests. He’s played the same test 50 times” (Shane Warne)
No doubt this response will be called ‘simplistic’ & RM will call me stupid:
I never mentioned universities nor ‘hot-housing’. What I am suggesting is that your proposals would deny me the choice to send my children to private schools (remembering that my taxes continue to contribute to state education & universities) Surely, if I take my children out of state education, but continue to support it via taxes, then there must be more resources per head available to children in state education.
Private hospital treatment doesn’t devalue anyone’s rights to use the NHS free at the point of treatment as the same logic applies.
With regards to your shares comment – a shareholder cannot issue more shares in a company. Only the company can do that, and it must be subject to board approval etc. However, if there are only 10 shares in a company, then a vote of shareholders can determine share issues etc. Thus, if I only own 20% of a companies equity then I can be outvoted. Shareholders are outvoted everyday by majority holdings.
You clearly do not understand the concept of fraud on a minority in company law, or a lot else come to that