Bryan Gould writes:
As with
most elections, the Clinton dictum that “it’s the economy, stupid,” has held good in the
general election of 2015 – with special emphasis this time on “stupid”.
The
debate about who has done or will do best in managing the economy has been even
more confused and irrational than usual this time.
It is often the case that
“the economy” means something quite different to the voters than it does to
those contesting for power.
For the voters, it simply means whether they have
jobs, or feel better off today than they did yesterday.
Arguments over the
interpretation of longer-term economic trends leave them largely unmoved.
And
the more bitter and divergent those arguments, and the more they depend on
either side on disputed facts, the less willing and able the voters are to get
involved.
Ten years from now, however, it is a safe bet
that much of the confusion will have cleared.
We will be sufficiently distant
from the hurly-burly, less engaged in partisan dispute, and better able to
agree on what recent history really tells us.
A consensus of informed and
objective opinion as to what really happened and why will have emerged.
We already know the shape of that consensus.
We know because we have been here before.
It took a Keynesian revolution and a
Second World War before we could see clearly what had caused the Great
Depression but that understanding did emerge.
The ideological prejudices of
those who had insisted on retrenchment as the cure for recession simply could
not survive the clear light cast by unchallengeable facts.
By 2025, we will have reached a similar
clarity of view and analysis as to what caused the Global Financial Crisis and
the consequent recession.
Those who were major players – and therefore major
culprits and protagonists – will have departed the scene.
We will know that the
GFC was the inevitable outcome of mistaken and irresponsible excesses, and of
an irrational belief that markets are infallible and self-correcting.
We will know that the response to the
recession that inevitably followed – as the banking system teetered on the
brink – made it the longest and deepest recession of modern times.
We will know
that British living standards fell more sharply and recovered more slowly than
they need have done and were still in 2015 lower than they had been in 2007,
and that austerity was a deliberate and bone-headed denial of all we had
thought we had learned.
So, why do we have to wait till that point
when it is already clear what has happened?
How can the assertion of partisan
positions, unsupported by the facts, nevertheless muddy the waters to the
extent that the voters of 2015 are left confused and uncertain?
The answer is partly and importantly a
consequence of Labour’s inexplicable failure to defend itself and its economic
record and to develop a coherent argument as to what really happened and what
can now be done.
Labour surrendered any ability to argue an alternative
economic case when it accepted that the reduction of the government’s deficit
is the most important single goal of economic policy and one that it would
carry into government if it were elected.
That ensured that no real challenge
could be offered to the Tory analysis and policy prescriptions, however
mistaken and destructive they may be.
It is also, however, a reflection of the Tory
ability to dominate the debate agenda and to flood the news media and
information sources with misleading and sustained misinformation.
How else to
explain that it is Labour that has to defend itself against the charge of
responsibility for the Global Financial Crisis and the consequent recession –
surely the definitive judgment on the errors and excesses of “free-market”
economics?
How else to explain that continued austerity is accepted as the only
game in town? Or that George Osborne can claim to have produced “success” and
“recovery”?
It may be expected – even accepted – that
politicians, with their reputation for cynicism, will bend the facts and tell
it like it isn’t.
But what to say of the role of the massed ranks of media and
the establishment that urge them on in their deceptions?
Are they so dedicated to their partisan interests that they are happy to see the country languish in a continued failure that looks increasingly unavoidable, as long as “their side” retains power?
Are they so dedicated to their partisan interests that they are happy to see the country languish in a continued failure that looks increasingly unavoidable, as long as “their side” retains power?
It does no service to the voters or to the country they live in that they should cast their votes on Thursday in deliberately engineered ignorance of the true state of affairs.
Those who seek to mislead them in this way are taking huge risks with democracy as a form of government and with our future as a country.
No comments:
Post a Comment