Andrew Lilico points out that that is what the SNP's monetary policy now is, with no Scottish political involvement at all in the setting of Scotland's interest rates, and with no lender of last resort for Scottish banks.
But then, Labour also wishes to retain the present situation whereby monetary policy is wholly beyond democratic political control by a Minister of the Crown drawn from, and accountable to, the House of Commons.
Nigel Lawson always wanted this "Bank of England independence". What else, Armed Forces independence? NHS independence? Abolish Parliament altogether? Anyway, Margaret Thatcher always refused to let him have it.
But either Tony Blair let Gordon Brown have it, or vice versa, depending on whom you ask.
And Ed Miliband and Ed Balls remain committed to retaining that reversal of one of the greatest democratising measures ever introduced in this country, one of the greatest achievements of the mighty Attlee Government.
On this, as on the refusal to commit to the public ownership of the Royal Mail and of the railways, Labour is now to the right of Thatcher.
It is no wonder that in the old Scottish Unionist heartlands and elsewhere (North and West Wales, Brighton Pavilion, the Bradford West that was a Conservative target seat in 2010), people who used to vote for her now vote for parties at least ostensibly to the left of Labour.
Even if, in the case of the SNP, that party is also to the right of Thatcher.
Even if, in the case of the SNP, that party is also to the right of Thatcher.
Well, I agree with every word of this-apart from your absurdly wrong definition of Right wing.
ReplyDeleteOnly people who just do not understand, and never will understand, the priorities of the modern Left still use the term as you do.
The seminal book The Future Of Socialism explained all this as far back in 1958; some people still haven't got it.
Even after the Human Rights Act, the Equality Act, the Lords Reform Act, the abolition of grammar schools, and even gay marriage, they still think the battle is all about "privatisation" vs "public ownership".
For heavens sake wake up. The real battle has been taking place elsewhere.
No, it has not. That trick to distract attention from issues of economic inequality and social justice will not work.
DeleteI'm not trying to distract anybody. I agree those are very serious issues-but the modern Left has achieved most of it's other goals, (from educational to constitutional revolution) while many people missed it because they still think in the categories of the 1940's.
ReplyDeleteAs Peter Hitchens is fond of explaining, hatred of grammar schools (not nationalising industry) is the real unshakeable"Clause Four" of the modern Labour Party.
Blair's abolition of Clause Four ( in reality, a dead letter for decades) was a meaningless con trick so people wouldn't notice all the other radical left wing plans he had.
That's why Miliband may be lukewarm on renationalising railways but wholeheartedly supported gay marriage. He may not have a position on privatising railways but he most certainly has a position on EU membership or grammar schools and we all know what it is.
Those are the priorities of the Left now.
He is very fond of saying it, but that doesn't make it true. It's all about wealth inequality and class again these days. Insofar as it ever really wasn't.
DeleteIt's always been true.
ReplyDeleteThe modern Left has nothing at all to do with wealth inequality-as anyone watching its priorities has noticed.
Class was the one category not included in Labour's Equaility Act.
Where the Left do still care about equality, it's equality of outcomes (not opportunities) typically between the married and unmarried, men and women, and a succession of unconventional victim groups.
Sex drugs and egalitarianism sums up the modern Left.
Class? It's the one category that doesn't even make it into the nine "protected characteristics" in the Equality Act. Transsexuals are in there, though.
Which sums up the modern Left better than either of us ever could.
You'll learn, dear boy. You'll learn.
DeleteFurther to my last comment. Is there a sentient being who really fell for Blair's obvious PR con of "the Clause Four Moment"?
ReplyDeleteLabour had abandoned renationalising the commanding heights of the economy decades before. Clause Four was a dead letter.
In every other area-from hereditary peers to Human Rights-New Labour was as radically left wing as ever.
Only the Clause Four dupes-who didn't understand what the modern Left was about-fell for the con.
"Labour isn't radical any more;we can trust it now...."
They should have listened to Peter Hitchens.
You'll learn, dear boy. You'll learn.
DeletePeter Hitchens is trapped in the riding high Eurocommunism of the early Blair years. That was a long time ago. The people who insisted it was all about class and wealth and would one day be shown to be have been proven right since 2008. 2008 wasn't yesterday, either. PH needs to catch up.
Delete