Bryan Gould writes:
The advice offered by some of its leading
thinkers that Labour should switch the focus away from the role of central
government and towards a greater devolution of power to the regions and
communities has a fashionable ring to it.
But it is another, perhaps unwitting, admission of the left’s damaging loss of intellectual self-confidence.
There is, of course, much to be said for bringing the exercise of power closer to the people; but the difficulty lies with its corollary – that expectations of what can be achieved by government should be reduced.
A reduced role for government is, after all, an essentially right-wing – and, in modern terms, neo-liberal – preoccupation.
It was Ronald Reagan who famously claimed that government was the problem and not the solution; and since then, the political right has worked hard to scale down, and in many cases remove, any power claimed by government to intervene in the “free market” economy.
The left, by contrast, has traditionally and valuably seen government, particularly when its role is legitimised by democratic election, as a necessary bulwark to protect basic freedoms and an essential defence for the interests of ordinary people against the otherwise overwhelming power of those who would dominate the market place.
The shift in power away from democratically elected governments and in favour of large corporations, greatly aided as it has been by globalisation and the acceptance of neo-liberal economic doctrines, is after all already well advanced – which makes it all the more surprising that influential voices from the left should recommend that it should be further encouraged rather than resisted.
It is one of the main indictments of New Labour that it showed itself to be so welcoming of the notion that government’s duty was to put business interests first – and it seems that the lessons to be drawn from that experience have still not been learnt.
Not only do we live in a society where all values are increasingly subordinated to the bottom line, but we run an economy in which all the major decisions have been removed from democratic government and handed over to institutions which owe no loyalty to anything other than the profits to be made for their shareholders from – as the Bank of England acknowledged last week – an astonishing monopoly power to create huge volumes of new money.
Virtually all the important economic decisions are now made, not by a government accountable to the voters, but by banks accountable only to their shareholders.
The craven attempt by politicians to hand over responsibility for economic management has a lengthening history.
The Exchange Rate Mechanism, the European Monetary System and the Euro – to say nothing of setting up an “independent” Bank of England to decide monetary policy – have all been devices to allow politicians to escape being held to account.
It is disappointing to find voices on the left advocating a further extension of this cowardly disclaimer.
That disappointment is further compounded by the apparent failure to understand that fragmenting, localising and under-resourcing interests opposed to those of the business big battalions is a recipe for clearing the way for yet further domination by those powerful interests.
The only chance we have of countering the ever-growing power of international capital is to summon up, coordinate and combine the total potential power of government – all the resources potentially at its command and all the legitimacy that is derived from the ballot box.
For the left to turn its back on this obvious truth is a painful – and totally unnecessary – dereliction of duty and counsel of despair.
Are we really ready to concede – as George Osborne asserts – that there is no alternative to the current destructiveness of austerity, and therefore no role for a government taking a different view and pursuing a different policy?
Are we really saying that voters need not and should not look to a Labour government for a society that is fairer and more caring – a better society that is necessarily based on a better-performing economy?
Do we concede that a better-performing economy is beyond the capacity of a Labour government?
Are we so lacking in intellectual curiosity and ambition that we are unaware of, and unwilling to pursue, the increasingly accepted possibilities of a quite different approach to macro-economic policy?
Do we really have nothing to say on these central issues, but are instead content to linger in the foothills so as to divert attention away from the need to scale the challenging peaks?
Why not do some hard work on the central issues facing this country- and in particular on a different macro-economic policy – and then have the courage and confidence to say to the electorate that changing government will make a real and beneficial difference to the lives of most people.
If we don’t believe that, why should anyone else?
But it is another, perhaps unwitting, admission of the left’s damaging loss of intellectual self-confidence.
There is, of course, much to be said for bringing the exercise of power closer to the people; but the difficulty lies with its corollary – that expectations of what can be achieved by government should be reduced.
A reduced role for government is, after all, an essentially right-wing – and, in modern terms, neo-liberal – preoccupation.
It was Ronald Reagan who famously claimed that government was the problem and not the solution; and since then, the political right has worked hard to scale down, and in many cases remove, any power claimed by government to intervene in the “free market” economy.
The left, by contrast, has traditionally and valuably seen government, particularly when its role is legitimised by democratic election, as a necessary bulwark to protect basic freedoms and an essential defence for the interests of ordinary people against the otherwise overwhelming power of those who would dominate the market place.
The shift in power away from democratically elected governments and in favour of large corporations, greatly aided as it has been by globalisation and the acceptance of neo-liberal economic doctrines, is after all already well advanced – which makes it all the more surprising that influential voices from the left should recommend that it should be further encouraged rather than resisted.
It is one of the main indictments of New Labour that it showed itself to be so welcoming of the notion that government’s duty was to put business interests first – and it seems that the lessons to be drawn from that experience have still not been learnt.
Not only do we live in a society where all values are increasingly subordinated to the bottom line, but we run an economy in which all the major decisions have been removed from democratic government and handed over to institutions which owe no loyalty to anything other than the profits to be made for their shareholders from – as the Bank of England acknowledged last week – an astonishing monopoly power to create huge volumes of new money.
Virtually all the important economic decisions are now made, not by a government accountable to the voters, but by banks accountable only to their shareholders.
The craven attempt by politicians to hand over responsibility for economic management has a lengthening history.
The Exchange Rate Mechanism, the European Monetary System and the Euro – to say nothing of setting up an “independent” Bank of England to decide monetary policy – have all been devices to allow politicians to escape being held to account.
It is disappointing to find voices on the left advocating a further extension of this cowardly disclaimer.
That disappointment is further compounded by the apparent failure to understand that fragmenting, localising and under-resourcing interests opposed to those of the business big battalions is a recipe for clearing the way for yet further domination by those powerful interests.
The only chance we have of countering the ever-growing power of international capital is to summon up, coordinate and combine the total potential power of government – all the resources potentially at its command and all the legitimacy that is derived from the ballot box.
For the left to turn its back on this obvious truth is a painful – and totally unnecessary – dereliction of duty and counsel of despair.
Are we really ready to concede – as George Osborne asserts – that there is no alternative to the current destructiveness of austerity, and therefore no role for a government taking a different view and pursuing a different policy?
Are we really saying that voters need not and should not look to a Labour government for a society that is fairer and more caring – a better society that is necessarily based on a better-performing economy?
Do we concede that a better-performing economy is beyond the capacity of a Labour government?
Are we so lacking in intellectual curiosity and ambition that we are unaware of, and unwilling to pursue, the increasingly accepted possibilities of a quite different approach to macro-economic policy?
Do we really have nothing to say on these central issues, but are instead content to linger in the foothills so as to divert attention away from the need to scale the challenging peaks?
Why not do some hard work on the central issues facing this country- and in particular on a different macro-economic policy – and then have the courage and confidence to say to the electorate that changing government will make a real and beneficial difference to the lives of most people.
If we don’t believe that, why should anyone else?
I don't see how you can be a Catholic, let alone one so ideologically preoccupied with Catholic Social Teaching, and yet still abrogate the concept of subsidiarity in favour of larger government.
ReplyDeleteSubsidiarity is the lowest appropriate level, not the lowest possible.
ReplyDeleteHow did Catholic areas vote (in stark contrast to the national norm) during the traditionalist Golden Age of the 1950s? Well, there you are, then.
A reduced role for Government is not "an essentially neoliberal preoccupation" and has nothing to do with Ronald Reagan.
ReplyDeleteWhat matters is why you wish to reduce it; to let the market run riot or to prevent humans being corrupted by too much power.
It's the old Buckley maxim; the Right was too optimistic about the power of markets and the Left was utopian about the power of the state.
They were both wrong.
Neoliberals want to substitute strong unfettered multinational corporations for a strong unfettered state.
The Left is only coincidentally in favour of state power-because it cannot peacefully coexist with any rival philosophy and because the things it wants-sexual freedom, open borders and softer criminal justice- inevitably weaken self-discipline and common morality and thus necessitate a stronger state.
True conservatives are sceptical of Big Government because they know humans can never be trusted with that much power over other humans.
Only God can.
Not quite. You're using a dictionary definition of secular subsidiarity there, rather than using the one as articulated by Catholic Social Teaching.
ReplyDeleteBut either way, it's still strange that you'd laud an article that questions the "greater devolution of power to the regions and communities" in spite of your oft repeated appeals to CST.
No, my position is exactly that of the Church, as most Catholic voters in all English-speaking countries and in at least many Continental ones (I don't know enough about Latin America, so I'd have to check) have always recognised. It is about the lowest appropriate level, not the lowest possible.
ReplyDelete