Mervyn King threw in the towel yesterday.
George Osborne had always intended to do nothing about the economy. That's because he is a cowardly politician; the sort who walk away from their responsibilities. I describe them in The Courageous State. He left the job of economy recovery to King.
And now King says the Bank of England can't do it.
Time for Plan B.
Time for the Green New Deal.
Time for a new government.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I think a distinction needs to be drawn between cowardly and other reasons for inaction, Richard. I’ve been thinking about this for a while since reading your book and I’ve come to the conclusion that while some polticians are undoubtedly cowardly (as we would normally understand the term) many or not. We might, for example, say that Clegg and Cable are cowardly as they are to scared of being out of power to stand up for their own beliefs. Similarly, we might say Miliband and co are cowardly in that rather than speak out against many of the policies that this government pursues they keep quite and let (hope) events will do the work for them.
Let’s take Osborne as an example, but the same would apply to Cameron and many/all Tories, plus a wide range of politicians from other parties. Ideologically – that is, insofar as his underlying beliefs and values are concerned – Osborne clearly doesn’t believe in anything other than the small state. Unlike Thatcher and Thatcherism, the new breed of young Tory have moved beyond the old mantle of the ‘free economy and the strong state’ (i.e. privatisation and decentralisation of many state functions and the centralisation of others). The project now is to dismantle state (government, politics, democracy, etc) aparatus based around the values, beliefs and institutions of social democracy and replace it with a hollowed out shell based around commercial interests and private gain.
Logically it follows that those who subscribe to such a view cannot and will not (except when they have absolutely no other option – for example, when forced to do so) use any form of state apparatus to the ends that you advocate here. Instead they must rely on – and believe in – the ability of commercial interests (who have now effectively become a shadow state) to act, drawing on, where necessary, the limited powers that remain in the hollowed out state.
In short, Osborne, Cameron, Hunt, Gauke, Gove, etc, etc are not being cowardly. They are being complicit – even conspiratorial if you want- in the destruction of a social democratic state and it’s replacement by a form of largely corporately controlled neo-feudalism. This has nothing to do with cowardise. It is planned and deliberate.
I buy that
Ivan I when I was a student teacher in the 60s we had Jack Dash, the dockers’ leader come to talk as part of our broader education. Several people said afterwards ‘I like him he believes in what he says.’ I thought this was a strange comment as it could apply to Hitler as well.
I think Cameron and co and convinced that they are right and things would be better if most things were privatised. They have a selective inattention to some of the downside consequences but we all tend to do that. It may even be that some of them are pleasant and honest people but that doesn’t mean they should be in power.
Compromise is not a bad thing-if we ever get PR we will have to learn the art of coalition but we have a number who have declined to challenge the powerful vested interests just as Richard describes. Why when the effects are so bad? Laziness and a desire for a quiet life is a component of evil. A desire to avoid conflict and struggle. Real rebels don’t have an easy passage and are often attacked or denigrated. Then there is the desire to be involved at the highest level-ambition.
In short I agree with both you and Richard. What is important is not the nature of the people who would destroy the social democrat state, but stopping them. Sensible alternatives are required and this is why I continue to promote this website to my friends or sometimes on the comment pages of the Independent or Guardian.
Thanks
Ivan, I agree with your analysis. One only has to look across the “Pond” to see what is store for us within 5 to 10 years time.
[…] why I agree with Richard Murphy’s assessment of George […]