I am never sure if I am an optimist or pessimist. I have to believe things can change, or I could not and would not do the work that I do. On the other hand, I never expect them to actually change, and so am always surprised, and pleased, when they do.
Why say this? I do so simply to suggest that there are limits to the use to be made of binary descriptions between polarities that rarely represent reality. I can be both an optimist and pessimist. I can be right and wrong, sometimes simultaneously. And I can be completely committed to social, tax, environmental and economic justice and believe that there is still a significant role for the private sector to play in the world in which we will live.
Does that make me a capitalist, or neoliberal? No, because the terms fail to describe what I am saying.
Does this mean I am not a socialist? Well, yes, it does, actually. But that's not a term I have ever been happy with, because it defines well-being in purely material terms in my opinion, and I think that inappropriate.
My point, then, is a straightforward one. It is that these terms don't work. People may use them. They may use them of themselves. And I completely accept that many people subscribe to the views that these terms describe. I respect their right to do so. But I don't personally believe that anyone can really rationally subscribe to these faith based explanations of our world. And that is because I simply don't believe that by describing polar opposites they are that useful.
Even the most hard core right winger recognises the role of the state - if only to enforce contracts, and to maintain property rights and law and order.
The vast majority of right wingers also concede a role that is vastly bigger than that: they accept that unless the state both establishes the rules of trade, which is a function that goes far beyond enforcing contracts, and also corrects for the many externalities that business creates (including poverty, inequality, climate change, threats to health and much else) then the market cannot work at all. In other words, markets can only exist within the embrace of the state. By doing so they evidence that they do not really believe in the power of unbridled markets.
What they are, instead, I think saying is that the state cannot apparently do what markets can. Note I say ‘markets'. I am not sure there is ‘a market' per se: that assumes a degree of co-ordination that is the antithesis of the very idea of what a market might be.
Markets have existed since, it would seem, time immemorial. At their most basic level they reflect the human ability to, firstly, specialise and to then, secondly, make for exchange with others. The reality is that this specialisation is fundamental to our ability to survive, as well as to our capacity to develop and innovate. Without the expertise it permits we would not be who we are. And, so far, no one has found an effective method for replacing this drive within the economy.
Saying that I do, of course, know the work of Mariana Mazzucato. I know that states have innovated. I am entirely confident that they still can. But adapting that innovation into useable products still seems to be a market function.
The point is a simple one: we're not talking either / ors in the case of successful innovation. It is, I think, a case of both.
Having said which, let me straight away say that there are many activities where a market is not required or does not function. We know that many have needs but no ability to exchange: whether as a consequence of age (young or old), infirmity or market failure (including of market access, such as structural unemployment, but also due to unequal wealth distribution) many are prevented from participation in markets without the support of the state. As a result markets cannot, as such, function for them. In those cases intervention by the state, without replicating market structures, makes sense.
The same is also true when there is no effective choice available in the exchange processes: natural monopolies exist and cannot in any way deliver the benefits of markets. In that case state control, as proxy for all who partake in the activity, makes sense.
Let's also be clear that markets can create harm. That can be because of the products that they sell. The history of harmful substances created for profit is very long. Some of this harm is also indirect, e.g. to the planet because markets assume nature is a free gift to exploit, with any return paid to landowners who have no apparent claim to it. And it can be consequential, for example by inducing indebtedness that enslaves those who become the subject of claims beyond their ability to settle. The state needs to protect people, planet and society from these harms.
But, of course, there are vast ranges of activities that fall between all these possibilities. Every day companies and people operating in markets do help us fulfil a great many of our needs. And I am really not convinced that much else, including cooperative movements which have a role but remain rare for a reason, can do this.
Why say this? I do so simply because almost no one is saying anything like this in the political arena at present. In politics it appears that you have to be for capitalism, and against socialism, or vice versa. This is the virility test that current debate imposes. But it's a false test: neither of these organisational forms meets the needs of a real society. Neither even actually exists. The state, state owned enterprise, and state driven activity for the benefit of all all need to co-exist in a modern society with well regulated markets where the rules of proper behaviour are enforced to create a level playing field for all participants. Believing in both is not inappropriate: it is required, and yet it is alien to much of our current political discourse.
The Conservatives appear to despise all state activity, but paradoxically wants to take control of a large state that they have absolutely no intention of really changing when what the propose is almost always peripheral, and frequently dogmatically driven and so fails to deliver beneficial change.
Labour has recently promoted significant nationalisation. Whatever the opinion polling when asked about individual policies, as a platform it did not resonate. Nor too did a Green Industrial Revolution where the very obvious need for private sector participation was underplayed because it was anathema to too many promoting it, even if it was absolutely essential to make it work.
The game is presented as either / or.
And let's be clear, both have failed.
And so too then has politics.
Whilst to expect politicians who appear unable to identify what is actually happening (and works) in the world around them to present any comprehension of the real macroeconomy, as I am guilty of doing, is, perhaps, a demand too far for me to make.
The truth is that Labour's vision has been too 1970s. Those around Corbyn since he's been in office seemed to be living in a time warp. Maybe they don't recall the Austin Allegro. I do.
And the Tories promote a vision of a capitalist society that is not remotely related to the real markets in which the vast majority of business operate, of which most Tory politicians have extraordinarily little experience.
That said, the Tories sang a better tune in the the general election: that appears undeniable. They persuaded more people to vote for them, whether that was rational or not. Marketing spin - one of the things that corrupts true markets - won the day.
But the truth is that neither party told a story that remotely reflected the real world we live in. The world of substantial interdependence, of compromise, of satisficing because nothing else is possible, and of moderation because people are aware that in reality there is no black or white when it comes to capitalism or socialism, but that there is instead a decidedly mixed economy that we need to make function to our best ability for the advantage of as many as possible, did not get a look in.
No wonder people are alienated from politics in that case. Politics simply does not talk about the world people live in. Why wouldn't people be alienated from it?
And come to that, is it any surprise that decent people don't want to get involved in politics when the consensus of the parties is to prescribe solutions that rational people know are incompatible with the world we live in?
The fact is that we live in the middle of the political systems that politics, economics, theorists and commentators describe as if the polarities are the destinations to which we aspire when that is not the case, with almost none of the commentary from any of those sources making any sense as a result.
The reality is that people want a strong state.
They have an innate sense of right and wrong.
They want a social safety net.
They recognise the enormous value of what must be produced communally, from education, to healthcare, to a sustainable planet, to safety, and common infrastructure.
And at the same time they want the chance to innovate, to work as they wish, to take risk and to develop economically as they want either for themselves, or for others they know.
They are not capitalists, let alone neoliberals.
But they are not socialists either.
They are realists.
And they're entirely right to be so.
It is they who are right and politicians who are wrong.
What they want are politicians who speak to the reality that they live in.
And they have not got them. And they do not see them on the horizon. No wonder they are disenchanted.
It is rational for them to be so. They inherently know that anyone who thinks that crushing the purchasing power of people within markets - as austerity deliberately did - really does not understand the nature, and importance, of demand in a market economy.
And they know that anyone who thinks that denying support for universities, training, research and development and state / private sector cooperation is a good thing really does not appreciate how much of our modern world was created, and that without these structures many cannot work as they also wish, and for the common good.
We have seen time and again that the public know that anyone who fails to uphold the laws that create a level playing field in which honest businesses compete - whether they are on tax, accounting, health and safety, the environment, and much else - is in the business of picking the cheats as the winners in our society.
But what people also are quite sure of is that anyone who thinks that the solution to the problems within markets is to get rid of markets is denying a significant part of the population - of whom we will all know some - the chance that they want to work in the way they choose. What is clear is that this denial is not acceptable in our society.
To return to my opening theme, what people know is that the world is not binary. They know it is messy. And what they are looking for as a result are politicians with the principles, integrity and wisdom to make good choices in that messy world. That does not mean subscribing to an economic mantra that puts finances above people. Nor does it mean subscribing to a belief that markets are always wrong. No one should believe that this election result was endorsement of either of these positions.
Instead what the alienation that most found to be the prevailing theme on doorsteps says is that people want something different. That is a narrative that reflects the way we actually survive in this world. And which liberates within the real constraints that we face.
Unfettered capitalism does not and cannot do that.
But nor does unfettered socialism.
Neither comes remotely close to anything people want.
What they want is what I have called a Courageous State. That stands up for markets. It stands against market abuse, in all its forms. And it stands up for people. But, equally, it is not willing to be taken for a ride. It seeks equity. It looks for the best and not the dogmatic solution. And it looks to create a common good where there us a chance if prospering in the real sense of the word.
This is what politics should be about. We are a very long way from it right now. There is not, that I can see, a single party that at present embraces anything like this in the form that is required. That means we have to live in hope and expectation. We can do better than we are. The hope is that in the 2020s we might.
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 100% agree with you Richard. Nail on the head.
I do believe that the Lie of ‘Tax Funds Spending’ has polarised the economy.
Either you believe in Free markets, low tax, low government spending. OR you believe in socialism, high tax, high government spending, limited markets, government intervention.
Never the twain will meet.
MMT rams a wedge between the private and public sectors. It says that “A strong public sector requires a strong private sector” Is bollocks.
The two sectors can run independently of each other – with the government marshalling the laws of both, ensuring both the public sector is sufficiently funded, and and the private sector is sufficiently taxed, resulting in full employment for all and little poverty. They both do what they are good at.
Its amazing how many socialists disagree with this. They want the private companies taxed to destruction.
We need to stop fighting.
Thanks Richard.
I hope we can all hold on to these thoughts.
For me, the greatest thing we can do is to bring people and ideas together – to collaborate, cooperate and hear another point of view.
Most of the things they were planning to nationalise were precisely those natural monopolies you were just talking about. Trains, electricity, water, telco infrastructure.
This is precisely the opposite of 1970s style “nationalise the commanding heights” stuff. They are measures precisely informed by a theory of what the state does better than markets – not a theory that the state does everything better.
Whatever it’s failing as a campaign message, in terms of pure policy this is EXACTLY what you were asking for.
But given that regulation could in most of those cases have achieved the same result you entirely miss the point that pragmatic politics matters too
In fact you miss the point that Thatcher never really let these things leave state control
Why not consider the reality, not the dogma?
As a regular train user, I’m not going to say that regulation can’t work well. Nevertheless, I have never seen it work well in practice.
Nor did outright nationalisation
Or the private sector
Maybe running railways is hard for human beings to do
Re nationalisation & your comment “But given that regulation could in most of those cases have achieved the same result”
I disagree at least in the case of the electricity networks and probably gas as well.
First practicalities: the elec networks have been privatised for 30 odd years. These low risk monopolies get returns & pay dividends (Nat Grid – same as Shell as a % of the share price) that suggest they are still, after 30 years, poorly regulated – if this were not the case the returns on a regulated mionopoly would be much lower & not comparable to Shell or BP.
Second: data & knowledge assymetry : the network operators know their business inside out & are also highly numerate engineers for the most part. Thus they run rings around Ofgem (a rabble of lawyers & economists) which lacks the knowledge/data to regulate the network operators. The politicos likewise lack knowledge/data & are persuaded by ideology (oh look its markets) coupled to a “best leave sleeping dogs lying” mentality which means that there is zero prospect of better regulation.
There is also the problem that all DNOs (distribution network operators) both in Uk and mainland Europe are positioning themselves as obstacles to the implementation of high levels of embedded renewables. This assertion is evidenced by the claim that investment of Euro100bn per year is needed to “upgrade” electricity networks. Of course the self same network operators are remunerated on their (mostly) fully depreciated asset base – new assets = more revenue. Nationalisation would have stopped all this nonesense dead in its tracks. The fatberg will not change a thing & Ofgem is incapable of regulating the network operators. So another 5 or 10 years of looting and abuse by the DNOs.
You are assuming regulation would stay as it is
I admit, I do not
But over time maybe you have a point
Is it the number one priority of any government? Probably not. But effective regulation would be. And that would impact the price as well….
“I have never seen it [regulation] work well in practice.”
You surprise me. Perhaps you may find re-examining what you count as “regulation” may prove helpful. For example, the consumer standards of the EU on which our health and safety (to say nothing of our value for money) are fundamental to the nature of the products we buy; these standards are generally more critical to the economics of their industries, than tariffs. As far as I can see regulations have worked well for us, and I am apprehensive to see them go, with Brexit; and to discover that all that stands between me and an unsafe consumer world, is Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings.
In fact as Marianna Mazzucato has argued, those countries that seem the most neo-liberal have relied heavily on Government stimulus to fire business innovation; often more than free markets. As John Battelle pointed out in ‘The Search’ (2005), the key algorithm in Google’s spectacular rise was part funded by a National Science Foundation grant.
Let us look at the British experience. The biggest constituent part of the Footsie held by Pensions Funds in the UK is BP. What is BP? Just another oil company? The company was essentially founded by Government in 1908. Both the management and significant capital was supplied by Glasgow-based Burmah Oil; but the company was essentially a Government inspired operation that would not have seen the light of day without the efforts of the Foreign Office, executing the demands of the Admiralty, which urgently wanted to replace coal with oil in the fleet. BP was originally the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, founded by the British Government in pursuit of the wildcat speculation that there was a lot of oil to discover in Persia (Iran). The rest is history. We are still living with it. Free markets had nothing to do with it.
Oh, and lest you forget, the People’s Republic of China, which supplies most of the consumer products bought in the West, is still a Communist State. Labels mean almost nothing. Free markets? It depends what you mean by “free”. Things are rarely what they seem.
“Maybe running railways is hard for human beings to do”
I have travelled all over Europe as part of my work. Other countries don’t seem to find it that hard.
I think you’ll find many of them now do….
Thanks you Richard for this thoughtful & insightful post-Christmas piece which expresses better than anything I’ve read the way my own thinking has gradually evolved over the last few years.
I’ve always been left-leaning and have never voted Tory, but I only began to think seriously about such things following the bank crash of 2008 when – permanently resident in France since 1984 (what a year to make a life-changing move!), recently retired & widowed from my French husband and with increasing mobility problems – I had placed the proceeds of a small profit resulting from selling our house on the Seine near Paris and moving to a ‘longère’ in small village in Brittany (where I now live comfortably on one level) in the Isle of Man arm of the Derbyshire Building Society; in late 2007, the Derbyshire – already in difficulty – sold its IOM arm to the Icelandic bank Kaupthing and incorporated it into its subsidiary Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander IOM. Less than a year later – despite being in effect solvent – the IOM bank collapsed overnight, brought down by the crash of Kaupthing & its UK subsidiary. It took the IOM authorities (desperately trying to avoid the reputational effects of a bank liquidation) almost a year to finally place the bank in full liquidation and to trigger its compensation scheme, leaving the depositors in the lurch with no access to their funds or any compensation beyond a very minimal early payment. While I myself had no immediate need of my funds there, the situation of many others – including IOM residents and a large number of British expats including retirees who had recently sold up abroad & placed all their life-savings in the bank prior returning to live in the UK – was desperate. Others were suddenly unable to pay for urgently needed health care. Incensed by all this, I became active in the Depositors Action Group set up online to help & better inform distressed depositors and to fight on their behalf, and continue to do my best to help & inform via our websites as – over 11 years on – the liquidation finally draws painfully to a close (hopefully in early 2020).
It was at this time that I first came across this blog, from which I have learned a great deal about things about which I previously knew little. My interest has gradually widened and of course been further stimulated by the sorry Brexit affair and even more by the worrying lurch to the hard right in England and the current state of government.
So a big thank you to Richard & to many others who comment here and provide links to other sources all of which have helped me on my travels to a better understanding. As an intelligent person with a Ph D in applied mathematics, I remained shamefully unaware for far too long. So I can well understand why so many of the UK electorate are equally – if not even more – unaware and lost. Having finally woken up, I now do my best to spread the word as best I can.
Apologies for such a lengthy post – I did not set out to say all that, but like topsy it somehow just happened. My post-Christmas reflection I guess, hoping against hope for something positive in 2020. Best wishes to all.
Many thanks
And have a good new year
Most people want practical policies that play to the self interest of themselves and their families. You are correct to identify that people want a strong state. They also want a strong leader who understands what the people want and is prepared to fight for it. Sadly Johnson has persuaded people he is a strong leader. Perhaps he is, time will tell. Corbyn (unlike Johnson) failed abysmally in clearing out his internal opposition) and failed to come out fighting against the anti-Semite smear operation.
It will take a revolution to change our system. Can’t see that happening in the next 5 years. More likely leaders will emerge with agendas that match voter aspirations within the constraints of our existing 2 party system. More likely in 15 years than 5.
Concerning Brexit we need to remember we are still an evolving species:-
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247759661_Evolution_of_Parental_Caregiving
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51169484_Differences_Between_Tight_and_Loose_Cultures_A_33-Nation_Study
I probably should have added this article; the take-away being Brexit can be regarded as an affair of too much “bottom-up” mental processing and too little “top-down”:-
http://cdd.unm.edu/ecln/HVT/common/pdfs/2012_2.pdf
The term “free market” has always been a misnomer. It’s obvious after Brexit to all but the ignorant (of which there are many) that it’s “conditioned” by a variety of agencies.
By way of coincidence I landed on this today.
I think it is saying some of the same things.
https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_the_moral_roots_of_liberals_and_conservatives?rid=fC4eTcmI5wpy&utm_source=recommendation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=explore&utm_term=watchNow
Thanks
This is a magnificent exposition of the kind of political economy that is required right now not just in the UK, but in all of the advanced economies. It might not secure a thorough-going committed allegiance, but I remain convinced that it would secure the willing acceptance and consent of a vast majority of the electorate. And that is sufficient. Given the crooked timber of humanity it can never be ‘either/or’; it has to be ‘both/and’.
And the first task is to cleanse the language of political economy. Orwell remains eternally relevant, in particular his observation that so much political language “is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind”. In this context I profoundly disagree with and resent the use of the term ‘neo-liberal’ to describe the political and economic ideology that has dominated the political economy of the advanced economies since the late 1970s. This term conveys the glaringly and, in most cases, deliberately false impression that the dogma being advanced is somehow a revised, modified or new expression of liberalism. By default and, again in most cases, it intentionally categorises those opposed to this dogma as being in some way anti-liberal or illiberal.
Although there are many different views about the essential features of liberalism, neo-liberalism is its antithesis. It’s primary assertion is that the economic agents in all sectors of the economy, other than government, should be free to behave as they wish with minimal restraint. The state should be small with limited provision of universal services, taxation low, regulation minimal, economic stabilisation should be the responsibility of quasi-independent central banks relying solely on monetary policy and fiscal policy should be tightly restrained and adaptive to the behaviour of the other sectors. The powerful and wealthy should be free to capture economic rents on a sustained basis and to accumulate wealth; those without economic or political power should be prevented from performing collective actions and should be content to make do as they will.
Neo-liberalism is simply a particularly nasty historical mutation of capitalism in reaction to the shackling of capitalism in the post-war era and it concealed its ugliness and viciousness under a mantle of respectability provided by well-funded think tanks and malleable academics. Centre-left politicians, as the inheritors of the post-war legacy that was being trashed, were forced to adapt. Clinton, Blair and Schröder, three of the most gifted politicians in the post-war era, sought to advance their triangulating ‘Third Way’ to combine economic efficiency and social justice. But they did so when neo-liberalism was at, or close to, peak hubris, and, inevitably, failed to secure a sustainable settlement. And their legacy is bitter and divisive.
We can’t go backwards; we have to move forward. But, unfortunately, as neo-liberalism encounters its inevitable nemesis and struggles to maintain its previous dominance, economic, illiberal nationalism has forced itself in to the political and economic space. In the UK, the Conservative party, as is its wont, has been able to craft an unstable, but electorally successful, coalition of residual neo-liberalism and economic, illiberal nationalism. However, the Conservative, Brexit and unionist parties secured less than 15 million votes, while all other parties of a centrist, left-of-centre or progressive bent secured more than 16.5 million. Building that popular majority and turning it in to a government-supporting representative majority is the challenge. Can the century-long political warfare between Labour and the liberals be finally ended?
What are you talking about??Capitalism creates wealth eradicates poverty, creates equality of opportunity and has drastically improved health and longevity.
We have had the Soviet Union, GDR and now Venezuela.. you compare
For heaven’s sake, do grown-up politics and not such stupidity
I somehow feel depressed after that article… Its articulated beautifully and resonates deeply but suggests that the current situation is reluctant to change as each party has its ‘niche’ and no other party gets airplay.
So my question is then how do you make the change? A new political party which spreads a ‘new’ message is never likely to get the airplay in the next 5 years to make it viable (outside of a catastrophic event).
Oh dear… I think I’m entering a crisis but hopefully acceptance will come soon.
Maybe we need a crisis…
I suspect we will get one
We need progressive change of some sort, but a crisis?…not so keen on the idea, as the ones who pay the biggest price of crises are rarely those who cause it.
We have Brexit, that will be crisis enough.
Let’s hope it’s fairly moderate (it’s going to be painful no matter what form it takes) and lasts only a short time. It’s the only (relative) hope I have for the country right now.
As for what comes after, socialism v capitalism is indeed far too binary and simplistic.
People like simple ideas, but also like pragmatic realism….They aren’t very rational or self-aware most of the time are they.
Even less educated in political economy, or economic policies…hence the almighty mess…
Models get tried here and there, they can be observed, adapted, and maybe one will eventually suit us here, but people will always need to compromise and learn that dogmas are limiting, politically, ideologically, economically, among other things…
I could go along with a Scandinavian model, but very much doubt the present British public is ready for that kind of controlled capitalist socially cooperative model.
Does the word exist to describe what they have?
Words need to be invented, so ideas can fit them better, and people can adhere to them as they are developed. Both words, capitalism and socialism, were invented once. We need to move on with new words, new ideas, in a new world. The Green New Deal could lead to a new word?
But that won’t happen with greed-driven or dogmatic leaders and followers….oh dear. Back to the grind I fear.
[…] https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2019/12/27/what-the-election-proved-is-that-we-need-a-new-politi… […]
Unfortunately you have omitted the major issues: electoral reform and citizen participation. Nothing will change because neither of the two major UK parties are truly progressive and reject proportional representation or citizen involvement. There has never been real constitutional change in the UK from Magna Carta to devolution that hasn’t retained power at the centre and so it will remain. Politicians have always thought they new better than “the people”. Now we have a dangerous lunatic who thinks “the people” speak through him.
Those issues are reflected on elsewhere, often, on this site
The 2020s will also be the decade in which all countries’ dedication to reducing carbon emissions will become clearer – or not. We have to hold the British government to account for that – it is the single most important policy that they must grasp and adhere to.
And I fear they won’t. They’ll try to pretend that they are doing so, but I suspect that they’ll follow Australia’s bad example, and try to accumulate carbon credits. By 2030, we shan’t be at least half-way to carbon neutrality, which will be needed if their 2050 target is to be met.
Their target should have been carbon neutrality by 2030. From my reading of various textbooks and articles, that’s the point by which we shall know whether we’ve reached the tipping point in the various cycles that will determine our climate-change fate. Already the signs are negative – and as the original parent of carbon-burning industrial growth, we have the greatest responsibility for making sure the graphs remain on the positive side.
We can all make small changes to help the process. I shan’t use air transport again, and when we’re settled in Wales next year, we’ll probably stop using our car, as public transport is excellent in the area to which we’re looking to move. We’re already vegetarian, and we’re taking the vegan step over the next few months, with the bonus that we’ll also start growing our own vegetables when we move. I buy most of my clothes from charity shops, and we already compost much of our food waste.
Small steps – but the larger ones can’t be forgotten, and we need to keep our eyes on the government to make them.
A small point but I find it interesting that you (like many others) choose the Austin Allegro as a symbol of the failure of nationalised industry. The Allegro went into production in 1973. British Leyland was part nationalised in 1975.
Chris Grimshaw says:
” Austin Allegro as a symbol of the failure of nationalised industry. The Allegro went into production in 1973. British Leyland was part nationalised in 1975.”
The point I think is that it was still in production with only minor modifications until 1982. And it would barely have passed as being state of the art in 1975. This was the period when Japanese vehicles were a no brainer buy except to misguided ‘patriots’.
It was the last BL car my father bought
‘Never again’ was, I think, his comment
Ford won with him
Thank you, Richard. I so agree. I also think many in the general population would too.
The divisiveness leaves me cold.
Hope we must retain.
Happy New Year to you!
Richard,
It seems to me that the Labour Party in its current form reflects almost exactly the views and aims that you highlight in your article. The idea that Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell wanted to introduce some sort of Soviet command economy is laughable. The manifesto outlines a partnership between state and business. The nationalisations were only for the natural monopolies and the rail system, that 30 years of private ownership has reduced to a national embarrassment.
The you have not understood what I am saying
Richard,
you said “…almost no one is saying anything like this in the political arena at present. In politics it appears that you have to be for capitalism, and against socialism, or vice versa. This is the virility test that current debate imposes. But it’s a false test: neither of these organisational forms meets the needs of a real society. Neither even actually exists. The state, state owned enterprise, and state driven activity for the benefit of all all need to co-exist in a modern society with well regulated markets where the rules of proper behaviour are enforced to create a level playing field for all participants. Believing in both is not inappropriate: it is required, and yet it is alien to much of our current political discourse.”
I contend that the Labour Party under Corbyn & McDonnell were saying precisely that the state, state owned enterprises and well regulated markets should co-exist and complement each other to re-balance the economy. On the tiny number of occasions they were actually allowed to express their views they made this abundantly clear. I understand your points and agree with them, I just think the solution is there all along in the Labour manifesto.
Regards
Cris
Labour said nothing like this
Most of it – at the centre – projected profound hostility towards all aspects of business
And so do many of its members
If you do not see that you are part of the problem
I must have missed the part of Corbyn’s messaging that called for or alluded to the abolition of markets.
I think he called for a more muscular role for the state in the provision of public goods. That is entirely appropriate.
Brexit was an extremely divisive issue for UK Labour. That issue, combined with Labour’s failure to counter the sound finance “how will you pay for it?’ framing, prevented Labour from winning.
Please engage your intelligence and see how the rest of the world saw what was said
George Monbiot seems to be on much the same wavelength in today’s Observer:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/29/neoliberal-is-unthinking-leftist-insult-all-it-does-it-stifle-debate
Correction to my previous post – sorry, I meant Will Hutton!
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/29/neoliberal-is-unthinking-leftist-insult-all-it-does-it-stifle-debate
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/29/neoliberal-is-unthinking-leftist-insult-all-it-does-it-stifle-debate
Richard i think you need to observe this and many others who write on here..i do find that any objection on this blog is often just dismissed as “neoliberalism”.. and it is precisely this lazy rhetoric which has alienated many of the traditional labour voters and really serves no purpose other than to perhaps make those dishing it out feel warm in some sort of “academic” smugness..i think Will Hutton is spot on here
I know Will. Indeed, I had luc=nch with him not long before Christmas. We don’t always agree with each other, and that’s fine.
The trouble with his claim is that it is not wholly true.
Marxism can describe so much that as a generic term it has, in many ways, little meaning. I know that’s a big statement to make, but think about it and you see why: after all, the term can be used in so many disciplines it always requires some qualification.
Neoliberalism does not require such qualification. Use it as a description of a pro-market, anti-government belief that underpins a culture of law taxation, limited government activity, supposed self-reliance and the Washington Consensus in international affairs and it’s pretty precise.
I make no apology for being repetitive. Apparently endless repetition gets results and is one of the few things that does.
We won’t change the political culture until we stop paying politicians elite salaries. Politicians look after their own kind, they represent the interests of ‘people like us’.
Currently we pay MPs salaries that put them well into the top ten percent income bracket and wonder why they lose touch with ‘the people’. We might aspire to change the political culture, but we won’t change human nature, so we need to work with it.
Sorry Andy, but I disagree
You can’t ask a headteacher to become a politician and massively slash their income
But we need people like that a politicians
You must have met a better class of head teacher than I have 🙂
There are a lot of good ones
But not all, I agree…