This piece arose from a conversation over breakfast in the Murphy household this morning.
One of neoliberalism's greatest political achievements has been persuading people that it represents the sensible, moderate centre of politics. Those who accept its assumptions are described as responsible, pragmatic and realistic. Those who challenge them are dismissed as radical, extreme or economically illiterate.
President Macron of France tried to do this in his broadcast in France last night. I suggest that this is one of the greatest political deceptions of our time.
There is nothing inherently moderate about neoliberalism. It is an ideology that prioritises:
- markets over democratic decision-making,
- private wealth over collective wellbeing, and
- the interests of capital over those of working people.
Its consequences have included:
- growing inequality,
- weakened public services,
- insecure employment and
- the concentration of economic power in remarkably few hands.
How can that be called moderate? The answer is that neoliberalism has captured not just economic policy but the language through which politics is discussed, and the media that controls that discussion.
We are told that:
- cutting public spending is responsible, but investing in public services is reckless.
- privatisation is pragmatic, but public ownership is ideological.
- reducing taxes on wealth encourages enterprise, but taxing wealth to reduce inequality is class warfare.
These are not neutral descriptions. They are political judgements masquerading as economic common sense.
The result is that what claims to be the political centre has ceased to be defined by what might reasonably serve the interests of society as a whole. Instead, it has become defined by what is acceptable to those who already possess economic power.
That is a profoundly dangerous development for democracy.
Consider what neoliberalism actually demands. It expects:
- people to accept that essential services should be organised around profit,
- that housing should be treated as an investment opportunity,
- that workers should compete for insecure employment, and
- that governments should defer to financial markets when deciding what they can afford.
It also expects us to believe that these arrangements are natural, inevitable and economically efficient, even when the evidence of their social consequences suggests otherwise.
There is nothing moderate about organising society around the interests of a wealthy minority while expecting everyone else to bear the costs.
Nor is there anything inherently extreme about suggesting that everyone should have:
- a decent home,
- adequate healthcare,
- educational opportunities,
- economic security and
- the prospect of living on a sustainable planet.
These should be ordinary expectations of a functioning society.
Yet neoliberalism has been so successful in defining political debate that demanding these things can now be portrayed as radical, while defending the arrangements that deny them is supposedly sensible. This is playing out now in France.
We need to challenge this inversion of political language.
Moderation should not mean accepting the existing distribution of wealth and power.
Nor should it mean refusing to contemplate change because those who benefit from the status quo might object.
Moderation should mean seeking arrangements that reconcile the legitimate interests of everyone in society, rather than systematically favouring a privileged few.
That is what the politics of care seeks to achieve.
The real political question is not whether a policy conforms to neoliberal orthodoxy. It is whether it delivers economic security, social justice, democratic accountability and environmental sustainability.
Judged against those objectives, neoliberalism has a great deal to answer for.
The time has come to stop confusing the defence of privilege with political moderation.
And we should stop allowing those who defend an increasingly unequal economic order to claim that they alone occupy the sensible centre of politics.
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!
Agreed.
Neo-liberalism is a form socio-political monopolisation that has the public sector and the state under some form martial law, a ‘lockdown’ of sorts, strangling the market in ideas.
Hear hear.
I think there is now a signficant majority here in UK, who agree that “the status quo” in politics, has failed, because the evidence is all around them – primarily the cost of living crisis, and sewage in places it shouldnt be.
But so far, I don’t think they identify an ideological basis for it – they just see it as “not working”, but they haven’t yet understood WHY, or identified neoliberal economics as the problem. Hence the success of the far right, who produce scapegoats as an explanation instead.
Meanwhile, the Single Transferable Party politicians flounder around with their credibility shot to pieces, not by ideological opposition, but by undeniable failure – decades of it. Even climate collapse is catching up with them.
BUT, but, but we do not yet have enough public understanding of WHY things are failing, nor do we have enough agreement on practical logical solutions.
But what I find encouraging, is that I can see two more things emerging. First – a definite “round hole” – an anonymous gap in the political landscape, surrounded by all the identifiably failing status quo STP politicians, and secondly, an increasingly well defined “round peg” called the Politics of Care that looks as if it fits the hole.
None of this is clear enough yet, to be visible in media, or polls, or punditry, but it is definitely happening thanks to the efforts of “heterodox extremists” like FTF et al.
If the change we need is an unstable iceberg, at the moment, we can only see the bit above the water – the complaints of failure. But underneath, is the much larger “solutions” based part of the iceberg. As things get rougher, the iceberg may tip over. (Don’t push my imperfect iceberg analogy too far.)
Thank you
The deliberate failure to properly educate people to understand the situation is a fundamental obstacle to rectifying the political environment.
Macron is now facing the consequences of the relentless application of decades of neoliberal austerity and public service neglect. No amount of authoritarian police brutality will save France unless they move in a radically different direction. The national strike on 5th November will be a test for the future for them.
Much to agree with
Thank you, both.
The Italian TUC, CGIL, is calling for a general strike on 20 November.
Needless to say, JD Vance, or whatever his name is, blames immigration.
Everything is the foreigner’s fault.
And everyone is a foreigner in most of the world.
Agree it’s an extreme ideology that’s harming generations, see report below which reflects UN poverty in UK report done nearly ten years ago, except more damage done over time.
Neoliberalism is necropolitics and as an extreme ideology should be on the Prevent list.
https://assets.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/wpuploads/2026/10/The-Childhood-Lottery-Report.pdf
Thank you
Yes Richard – ‘ stop allowing those who defend an increasingly unequal economic order to claim that they alone occupy the sensible centre'<p>
But how? Until the BBC becomes truly independent we don’t have the means to be informed and to ‘stop allowing them'<p>
We have to know that the BBC and others talk bullshit. And most people know they do.
Thank you, both.
The BBC’s reporting is aimed at preventing people here from emulating their French comrades.
Over the week-end, James Waterhouse said Macron was centrist doing his best to stop the country going bankrupt, but left wing extremists were trying to bring France to the brink. I felt like throwing something at the tv, but remembered Mike’s wise words that it’s expensive.
🙂
Given its privileged position in the media landscape, its complacent, nauseating, self-congratulatory trailers farting on about being trusted and impartial, and, let’s face it, its indirect ability to potentially have me jailed, I hold the BBC to a much higher standard than the rest.
So, with retirement imminent, I have decided to harrass them with (justified) complaints when they breach impariality (happens at least once a day).
Some may say futile, and they may be right. But at the very least, the entitled folks at Broadcasting House are not getting my silence as tacit acceptance or approval.
So far, I’ve been impressed with how seriously they take my complaints. Their replies, stripped of the dripping condescension, could be compiled into a book, titled: “Just F*@! Off! We’re the BBC, so you’re wrong, peasant”
Well, I ain’t F*@!ing off.
So, why do people keep voting for it? – Because they do… and have done pretty consistently for 40 years.
I think your second point “Private Wealth over collective well being” is really what it is all about.
Whilst a good chunk of the population have no wealth, most do have some (or at least expect/aspire to some). They complain bitterly about poor public services but, when push comes to shove, they don’t want to give up their luxuries – weekend city breaks, meals out, taxi rides etc.
Also, who is the “collective”? There is little connection between different sections of society. “I would pay more tax but it only goes to scroungers and foreigners”.
I don’t know how we create some sort of national social solidarity but two (possibly completely unworkable) ideas.
First, ban private schooling. Allocate school places by random lot.
Second, back National Service… but National Care Service. All School leavers must spend 2 years working the the case sector. Again, allocated to roles at random. It would make youngsters of all backgrounds mix, learn how to care and help solve the staffing crisis in the care business.
Excellent and very welcome analysis. Unfortunately neo-liberalism has been extremely successful and countering it requires this kind of deconstruction. It’s no use arguing that it has failed when the opposite is true.
A philosopher told me this week that what Aristotle meant by ‘moderate’ was to know when to be calm and when to be angry. There is plenty of reason to be angry with the French government. So the correct moderate moral behaviour, is anger. The only reaction available to politicians is to label the anger “far left”. As some how the anger is not coming from a reasonable political position of moderation. All the politicians can do is point the finger and call the protest ”radical”. All the far right can do is label it as “immigrants” and act like the protestors aren’t French.
For those who appreciated the ‘Enshittificator’ video by the government-funded Norwegian Consumer Council, they have made a follow-up:
https://youtu.be/d6SPV4GZp-U?is=Lmyt2slH2fioLLcS
Very good.
The latest disaster is Burnham’s government , perpetuating the con. We are heading for disaster, and all they can do is divide communities (e.g. Sheffield) and run according to corporate and Israeli bidding.
https://youtube.com/shorts/4hZZIbKvKRo?is=eSjX1n4Xq8g5WGX2
Great video from Barry here, very pertinent to the cult of neoliberalism.
I must get to watch his latest one.
Society only really functions if the benefits of adhering to the social contract outweigh the costs of breaking it.
People respect the concept of property, the value of money etc because it’s in their best intersyes to do so.
That’s why people used to guard there physical wealth, you might not respect someone’s ownership of something but if you.had to risk your life to take it you’ll rethink.
But when society gets very imbalanced and a majority have no stake in the status quo society can get very volatile
Thanks again for another percipient article.
Might it be that the theory of Neoliberalism became/is so powerful because of the collusion between politicians and main stream media journalists, electric and print, not least the B.B. C?
Might it be relevant to views on the form of our Democracy/Polyarchy, as well as on Neoliberalism, to bear in mind the groups in U. K society who have gained from the adoption of Austerity/Neoliberalism? (From AI Overview)
1) The financial sector and wealthy asset holders
2) Private outsource providers and corporate contractors
3)Higher-income taxpayers(relative to low-income groups)
I have been repeat listening to the affluent society and wondering about how long will it be before the conventional wisdom of neoliberalism is seen for what it is
Soon, I hope.
Neoliberalism is successful because it panders to selfishness and so many people are inherently selfish. It’s how Thatcher became so popular because she appealed to what my old Mum used to call their ‘base instincts’.
I always think it a ridiculous paradox that the neoliberal Tories (and others) claim Christianity as the base of their party morals but loathe socialists who live more of the way Jesus taught. Care for others, be a good Samaritan, share your goods, love your neighbour.
Being a socialist is now almost a crime. I feel quite despondent about it.
Another little test of how our society has failed us over the last 50 years. For most of the 20th century male stature in the UK increased, mainly due to improved nutrition and healthcare. In about the 1970s the average male height was approx 5’10” in old money. The most recent figure puts it at 5’8.75”.
Another triumph for neoliberalism.
Wow….
Hello Richard,
I watched your interview with Mario Nawfal yesterday and found it fascinating.
I live and work in London, but I am originally from Karachi, Pakistan. Despite having studied and worked here for around five years, I still struggle to fully grasp British politics, so please forgive my ignorance.
One point you made was that Thatcher’s privatisation was a major factor in the state’s retreat from wealth redistribution and public intervention. This left me with a question.
If a larger state risks creating an inefficient and bloated bureaucracy, how do you envisage meaningful government intervention working in practice?
In the UK, we seem to have a growing tax burden, continued austerity in public services, and capital that can increasingly move across borders in search of more favourable conditions. Where does that leave a government that wants to redistribute wealth and rebuild public services without undermining investment?
Looking more broadly, some countries with less conventional democratic systems appear to exercise greater control over capital, whereas in Western democracies, governments often seem constrained by the power and mobility of private capital.
How, then, can a government like the UK’s meaningfully intervene in the economy when the threat of capital flight limits its room for manoeuvre?
Thank you in advance for your time.
With kind regards,
Zain
Thank you, Zain.
First, a larger state does not necessarily mean greater bureaucracy or inefficiency. What matters is how effectively government operates and whether it is democratically accountable.
Second, public investment can encourage (crowd in) private investment. Businesses depend on education, healthcare, infrastructure and functioning public services. Government provides the foundations on which much private enterprise depends.
Third, the UK government can create sterling to fund investment. The real constraints are the availability of people, skills and resources, and the risk of inflation. Taxation helps manage that risk whilst redistributing wealth and limiting excessive economic power.
Capital flight is a genuine concern, but its significance is frequently exaggerated. Financial assets can move internationally, but land, infrastructure, buildings and much productive activity cannot. Sterling sold by one investor must also be acquired by another. Exchange rates matter, but they do not remove the government’s capacity to act.
The fundamental problem is political. Governments have accepted the idea that financial markets must dictate economic policy.
I want a democratic state that challenges that assumption, invests in public well-being and creates the conditions in which private enterprise can also flourish.
That does not require abandoning democracy. It requires making democracy work.