On the face of it British politics has never been more
interesting. The government is currently run by an increasingly awkward
coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. There remains a
considerable amount of unease within the Labour Party towards Ed Miliband’s
style of leadership. In Scotland, we are only months away from a decisive
referendum on whether Scotland should leave the United Kingdom. And to top it
off across Europe, we are seeing the rise of the populist right embodied in
Britain by Nigel Farage and UKIP.
Surely there hasn't been a more interesting time to be
observing British politics. That is until you asked the question where is the
argument for genuine change coming from? The only answers seem to be being
provided by an unholy mixture of separatists and right-wing nationalists. The
rise of nationalism whether in the guise of separatism or populism is
concerning enough; but this misses the bigger picture of widening inequalities.
What of the main three parties, where are their arguments for
change? With the exception of the Lib Dem commitment to political reform;
genuine change seems thin on the ground. All three of Britain's main government
parties subscribe to the political and economic consensus that began during the
government of Margaret Thatcher. This is the consensus of Thatcherism and its
offshoots; a group of philosophies which many academics refer to as
neoliberalism. Thatcherite watchwords like the free market, privatisation,
deregulation, austerity, competitiveness, welfare reform and fiscal discipline have
now become commonplace. In a nutshell, this consensus boils down to the
preference of private over public, the corporate over the community, self
concern over social concern and the ability of the free market over the ability
of the state.
This is the consensus to which all three of Britain's main political parties now subscribe to. Obviously, it was the Conservative Party in the late 1970s that first adopted a free-market approach under Margaret Thatcher. It wasn't until the mid-1990s that the Labour Party adopted the post-Thatcher consensus. Tony Blair under a programme called "the third way" sought to mix the competing economic views of Thatcherism and social democracy. As for the Lib Dems, they have consistently supported social liberalism since 1906; however in 2004 "The Orange Book" was published, which sought to fuse the social liberalism of the left with the economic liberalism of the right. Orange book liberalism has been in the ascendancy within the Lib Dems since the resignation of Charles Kennedy in 2006. The offshoots of Thatcherism can also be found in aspects of the SNP; whereas UKIP is an overtly Thatcherite party.
So what have been the consequences of 35 years of Thatcherism? Firstly there has been a widening gap between the rich and poor. In Britain this is epitomised by the fact that almost 1,000,000 people have had to use a food bank in order to feed themselves in the last year. Furthermore there is a widening regional gap between the former industrial North and the business orientated London and the South East. At the same time property price bubbles have been allowed to develop due to reckless bank lending. In 2008, this led to a global financial crisis, which came against a backdrop of under-regulation in the banking system and as a result a bailout of the banking industry was required.
While regulations were being curved for the rich, they were only increasing for the poor. Welfare-to-work programmes have been on the rise, whereby welfare claimants for jobseeker’s allowance (JSA) will have to work to continue getting their benefits after nine months. There have also been stricter rules, tougher penalties and closer scrutiny placed on the welfare claimed by the poorest especially in relation to unemployment. Welfare reforms such as the “bedroom tax” have led to the housing benefit for those in social housing being reduced if they have one or more spare rooms. Such welfare reforms have been a major cause in rising inequality and the rise of food poverty in Britain. This has been accompanied by a vile political discourse, which vilifies people who claim benefits. This is being conveyed through the media who target the poor, the unemployed and the disabled with sensationalist headlines and television programmes like “Benefits Street.”
Youth unemployment is a serious problem in today's Britain. The country still has almost 1,000,000 young people unemployed this is the equivalent of almost one in five young people being without a job. Young people feel alienated from politics and from society due to a whole raft of broken promises and welfare cuts that have impacted on them. Even the Labour Party intends to cut JSA for the under 22s who do not get training or qualifications. No politician of any political party seems to be willing to defend the rights of young people let alone tackle youth unemployment. From 1945 until the late 1970s, governments had a profound role in tackling unemployment. Such Keynesian policies like full employment have become a thing of the past under Thatcherism. It is this neglect of social policy that has undermined almost 1,000,000 young people and is denying them of having a more secure future.
Before Margaret Thatcher came into office it is true that income tax levels were incredibly high and that in some respects the trade unions were too powerful. However, the situation has gone from one extreme to the other. Today, the wealthiest are taxed less than 50% and there are no measures to tax the property assets of the wealthy. As for the trade unions, from being too powerful few decades ago they are too weak today. Any democracy needs a functioning trade union movement; however wage levels for a decade have remained relatively stagnant, partly due to the absence of an effective trade union movement.
The reach of the free market seems to be never ending. A whole range of industries were privatised in the 1980s and 1990s, from telecommunications, to utilities, to the railways. The free market has also had an increasing influence in public service provision. In the NHS, private companies are increasingly being relied on to provide health care services and competitiveness has been placed at the heart of the NHS. It is worth remembering that the first concern of a private company is to create profit. The profit motive is the primary motive and any other motive whether it is caring for patients, educating school pupils or delivering local services will only ever be secondary.
Perhaps the most concerning aspect of the post-Thatcher consensus has been the political disengagement of many people with the political process. Too many people, especially from traditional working class communities, no longer feel represented by the views of the mainstream parties and are in danger of falling foul of the siren voices on the populist right. Why is no one making the case that people are facing such economic difficulties not because of immigration, but because of entrenched inequalities, or the under-regulated banking industry, or the lack of a Keynesian solution from government, or through the lack of an effective trade union movement.
Where is the progressive challenge to the current status quo going to come from? There is a whole wealth of centre-left social liberal and social democratic groups and intellectuals, who are laying the foundations for a potential progressive alternative to the post-Thatcher consensus. Internal party groups such as the Social Liberal Forum and Compass are becoming factories for new progressive ideas in order to challenge the worn out status quo. There are also a wealth of academics on the moderate left from which progressive inspiration could be drawn from, such as, John Rawls, Thomas Piketty, Will Hutton, Paul Krugman, Ha-Joon Chang and Roberto Unger.
The post-Thatcher consensus has left Britain more economically unequal, more politically disengaged and more socially insecure than when it began. It has centralised political and economic power in Westminster and the City of London. The great democratic deficit between working people and the company management needs to be bridged through a mixture of co-operatives, worker representation on company boards, worker share ownership and renewed trade union engagement. There also needs to be a serious attempt to redistribute wealth and to reduce the scope of the free market in social policy. Finally, there needs to be a Keynesian solution focusing on tackling unemployment, the looming housing crisis and the ever present threat of climate change.
In some respects Thatcherism and the post-Thatcher consensus has tested the fabric of our society, our economy and our democracy almost to breaking point. It represents a tired and worn out consensus, that doesn't benefit millions of people in Britain. Furthermore it has neutralised the ideological competition that makes democracy a viable concept. The three main political parties must break away from representing fifty shades of Thatcherism. Britain needs a new consensus; the freedoms, rights and opportunities of the most disadvantaged in society depend upon it.
This is the consensus to which all three of Britain's main political parties now subscribe to. Obviously, it was the Conservative Party in the late 1970s that first adopted a free-market approach under Margaret Thatcher. It wasn't until the mid-1990s that the Labour Party adopted the post-Thatcher consensus. Tony Blair under a programme called "the third way" sought to mix the competing economic views of Thatcherism and social democracy. As for the Lib Dems, they have consistently supported social liberalism since 1906; however in 2004 "The Orange Book" was published, which sought to fuse the social liberalism of the left with the economic liberalism of the right. Orange book liberalism has been in the ascendancy within the Lib Dems since the resignation of Charles Kennedy in 2006. The offshoots of Thatcherism can also be found in aspects of the SNP; whereas UKIP is an overtly Thatcherite party.
So what have been the consequences of 35 years of Thatcherism? Firstly there has been a widening gap between the rich and poor. In Britain this is epitomised by the fact that almost 1,000,000 people have had to use a food bank in order to feed themselves in the last year. Furthermore there is a widening regional gap between the former industrial North and the business orientated London and the South East. At the same time property price bubbles have been allowed to develop due to reckless bank lending. In 2008, this led to a global financial crisis, which came against a backdrop of under-regulation in the banking system and as a result a bailout of the banking industry was required.
While regulations were being curved for the rich, they were only increasing for the poor. Welfare-to-work programmes have been on the rise, whereby welfare claimants for jobseeker’s allowance (JSA) will have to work to continue getting their benefits after nine months. There have also been stricter rules, tougher penalties and closer scrutiny placed on the welfare claimed by the poorest especially in relation to unemployment. Welfare reforms such as the “bedroom tax” have led to the housing benefit for those in social housing being reduced if they have one or more spare rooms. Such welfare reforms have been a major cause in rising inequality and the rise of food poverty in Britain. This has been accompanied by a vile political discourse, which vilifies people who claim benefits. This is being conveyed through the media who target the poor, the unemployed and the disabled with sensationalist headlines and television programmes like “Benefits Street.”
Youth unemployment is a serious problem in today's Britain. The country still has almost 1,000,000 young people unemployed this is the equivalent of almost one in five young people being without a job. Young people feel alienated from politics and from society due to a whole raft of broken promises and welfare cuts that have impacted on them. Even the Labour Party intends to cut JSA for the under 22s who do not get training or qualifications. No politician of any political party seems to be willing to defend the rights of young people let alone tackle youth unemployment. From 1945 until the late 1970s, governments had a profound role in tackling unemployment. Such Keynesian policies like full employment have become a thing of the past under Thatcherism. It is this neglect of social policy that has undermined almost 1,000,000 young people and is denying them of having a more secure future.
Before Margaret Thatcher came into office it is true that income tax levels were incredibly high and that in some respects the trade unions were too powerful. However, the situation has gone from one extreme to the other. Today, the wealthiest are taxed less than 50% and there are no measures to tax the property assets of the wealthy. As for the trade unions, from being too powerful few decades ago they are too weak today. Any democracy needs a functioning trade union movement; however wage levels for a decade have remained relatively stagnant, partly due to the absence of an effective trade union movement.
The reach of the free market seems to be never ending. A whole range of industries were privatised in the 1980s and 1990s, from telecommunications, to utilities, to the railways. The free market has also had an increasing influence in public service provision. In the NHS, private companies are increasingly being relied on to provide health care services and competitiveness has been placed at the heart of the NHS. It is worth remembering that the first concern of a private company is to create profit. The profit motive is the primary motive and any other motive whether it is caring for patients, educating school pupils or delivering local services will only ever be secondary.
Perhaps the most concerning aspect of the post-Thatcher consensus has been the political disengagement of many people with the political process. Too many people, especially from traditional working class communities, no longer feel represented by the views of the mainstream parties and are in danger of falling foul of the siren voices on the populist right. Why is no one making the case that people are facing such economic difficulties not because of immigration, but because of entrenched inequalities, or the under-regulated banking industry, or the lack of a Keynesian solution from government, or through the lack of an effective trade union movement.
Where is the progressive challenge to the current status quo going to come from? There is a whole wealth of centre-left social liberal and social democratic groups and intellectuals, who are laying the foundations for a potential progressive alternative to the post-Thatcher consensus. Internal party groups such as the Social Liberal Forum and Compass are becoming factories for new progressive ideas in order to challenge the worn out status quo. There are also a wealth of academics on the moderate left from which progressive inspiration could be drawn from, such as, John Rawls, Thomas Piketty, Will Hutton, Paul Krugman, Ha-Joon Chang and Roberto Unger.
The post-Thatcher consensus has left Britain more economically unequal, more politically disengaged and more socially insecure than when it began. It has centralised political and economic power in Westminster and the City of London. The great democratic deficit between working people and the company management needs to be bridged through a mixture of co-operatives, worker representation on company boards, worker share ownership and renewed trade union engagement. There also needs to be a serious attempt to redistribute wealth and to reduce the scope of the free market in social policy. Finally, there needs to be a Keynesian solution focusing on tackling unemployment, the looming housing crisis and the ever present threat of climate change.
In some respects Thatcherism and the post-Thatcher consensus has tested the fabric of our society, our economy and our democracy almost to breaking point. It represents a tired and worn out consensus, that doesn't benefit millions of people in Britain. Furthermore it has neutralised the ideological competition that makes democracy a viable concept. The three main political parties must break away from representing fifty shades of Thatcherism. Britain needs a new consensus; the freedoms, rights and opportunities of the most disadvantaged in society depend upon it.
No comments:
Post a Comment