The editorial on the economy's role in the election concluded that the
choice was "not a perfect one but nonetheless stark", between an increased or
reduced role for the state. (the Guardian view on Britain's choices:the economy,
18/04/15) A little surprising, however, was the insistence on using rather
esoteric language when clarity was clearly preferable. At least Aditya
Chakrabortty didn't hold his punches when he wrote about Osbornomics back in
2010, with his description, "taking the boot of the public sector off the neck
of the private sector". (Why George Osborne sounds like Margaret Thatcher in the
1970s, 05/10/15)
You are right to say that the Tory philosophy of viewing the state as
"crowding out the private sector" failed, but why not be less obscure about the
facts? The Tories want to see a return to a system more akin to 19th century
laissez-faire, where regulation and inspection were practically non-existent,
and where the results were the exploitation of the workers, huge levels of
inequality, and low taxes.
The response from business to the lowest corporation tax of the G7 nations,
a rate fully 18% lower than in America, hasn't exactly been a success, either,
with companies still having maximisation of profits as their raison d'etre, the
largest pay gap in Europe between average worker and CEO, employees paid so
little they have to rely on benefits, and tax avoidance policies sufficiently
widespread to be described by Margaret Hodge as an "industry".
It is a "stark" choice, but let's be quite clear: it's between the
continued exploitation of the working people, and a society which at least
acknowledges the important role government has to play in curbing the greed of
business!
Matthew d'Ancona is frequently not only annoying because his column leans a
little too far to the right for my liking, but because it often includes dubious
statements laced with inaccuracies. (You think coalition government was bad?
What's coming is uglier,20/04/15) The number of parties in this election
campaign vying for our votes may well resemble "the political theatre of
continental countries", but the suggestion that their intention is to "tame a
Labour or Tory regime" indicates the author is spending rather too much of his
time on the Cameron campaign trail. That may be the aim of the duplicitous
Liberal Democrats, but try suggesting to the Green or nationalist parties'
candidates that their real aspiration is to prevent a future Labour government
bringing in radical legislation!
d'Ancona apparently is not aware that the Labour proposals fall short of
the wishes of most of the electorate, as they do not include any nationalisation
of rail or energy companies, or even a financial transaction tax. It is far
more likely that the ambitions of most of the minor parties is to drag the
Labour party further left, admitting austerity measures have failed, and into
adopting the necessary policies to transform banking and business cultures which
see their profits and tax avoidance their raison d'etre.
Indeed, the best hope for a transformative and radical government now
appears to be, not a Labour government with a large majority, but, in the words
of d'Ancona, a "rainbow pact", a coalition dominated by Labour but relying on
support from minority parties. Far from "taming" Labour, they could well supply
the essential reminder of where its priorities lie!
No comments:
Post a Comment